1. II. Structuring Strong Arguments
PERSUASIVE SPEECHES
II. Structuring Strong Arguments

2. Three Major Parts of an Argument
Evidence: Specific materials used to support an idea (e.g., facts, examples, statistics, testimony).
Warrant: Reasoning that connects evidence to a claim; or justifies a claim, given the evidence
Claims: A series of statements (or propositions) that you want audience to accept or believe.

3. Types of Claims
Claims of Fact: Asserts that something is true or not; happened or didn’t; will happen or won’t.
“Using fluorescent light bulbs will cut your utility costs.”
“Global warming is being caused by humans.”
“By 2020, the space elevator be used for near-earth space travel”
Random drug testing decreases workplace drug use.

4. Types of Claims, cont.
Claims of Value: Asserts that something is moral or immoral, good or bad, beautiful or ugly.
Civil disobedience is justifiable in a democracy.
Censorship is a greater evil than pornography.
Abortion is immoral.
Free agency is bad for professional sports.

5. Types of Claims, cont.
Claims of Policy: Asserts that some specific action should be taken by or approved by the audience
CSU Pueblo should ban all smoking on campus.
The U.S. government should institute a universal health care program.
Colorado should increase funding for rural school systems.
Parents should limit TV watching and computer use by their children.

6. Example of a Logical Argument
“According to the Institute of Medicine, compared to countries with universal or national health care programs, proportionately fewer Americans see the doctor each year. Many Americans report that they don’t go because they don’t have health insurance. And18,000 of them die each year because they didn’t see a doctor. That’s a problem that just doesn’t exist in countries with universal health care programs, where proportionately more citizens are getting better health care. The U.S. federal government should adopt a national health care program so that Americans can have the same benefits as other countries with such programs.”

7. Example of Logical Appeal, cont.
Evidence:
Compared to those in countries with universal health care programs, fewer Americans see the doctor; 18,000 die.
Warrant # 1:
People in the U.S. desire higher quality health care.
Countries with national health care programs have higher quality care.
Therefore, the U.S. should adopt a national health care program.
Claim
Therefore the U.S. should adopt a national health care program.

8. Five Logical Patterns of Claims-Warrants-Evidence
Deduction – reasoning from a general case to a conclusion about a specific case
Induction - reasoning from specific cases to a conclusion about a general case
Causal - reasoning from a cause to an effect or vice-versa
Sign - reasoning from a sign to a conclusion about a co-occurring instance
Analogical – reasoning from one case to a conclusion about a similar case

9. Causal Reasoning
Seeks to establish a relationship between causes and effects.
Example: Younger drivers have more accidents largely because they are greater risk takers than other drivers, on average.
Example: Get a flu shot! A few seconds of discomfort can prevent a week of serious hurt!
Examples: The presence of oxygen on earth made human life possible.

10. Guidelines for Causal Reasoning
Avoid hasty assertions based on stereotypes, hearsay, or tradition
Do not assume that because two things occur together that one causes the other.
Do not assume that events have only a single cause
Describe the relative importance of multiple causes
Support the causal conclusion with evidence (statistics, testimony)

11. Reasoning from Sign
The presence of one thing indicates the presence of another thing.
Example: Spring is coming and so we should expect an increase in home sales.
Example: She scored very high on the ACT, and so I suspect she is very smart.
Example: He has a hoarse voice so I suspect he has a cold.

12. Guidelines for Reasoning by Sign
Be sure that the sign and the co-occurring entity are generally closely related
Use evidence to support the association between the sign and the co-occurring entity.

13. Analogical Reasoning
Comparing two similar entities by arguing that what is the case in the first is/will be the case in the second.
Example: If you do well in math, you will likely do well in music.
Example: This same reorganization of higher education worked in Arizona, and so it should work in Colorado.

14. Guidelines for Analogical Reasoning
Above all, make sure the two cases being compared are essentially alike

15. Fallacies
Turning correlation into causation – asserting that because A follows B, A causes B (“I wore my lucky hat and so we won”)
Red herring – introducing an irrelevant issue to divert attention from main issue(s) (“Reducing air pollution is important, but right now taxes are too high”)
Ad hominem – targeting a person instead of the issue (“He’s wrong...He’s always wrong”)
False dilemma – forcing listeners to choose between two alternatives (“You’re either with me or against me”)

16. Fallacies, cont.
Bandwagon – asserting popular opinion as support (“We should do X because everyone is doing it”)
Slippery slope – asserting that taking the first step will invariably lead to a second, third, and so on (“Eating cookies leads to a sugar obsession, which leads to addiction and eventually death”)
Appeal to tradition – asserting that something should be done because “that’s how it has always been done”
Begging the Question – Assuming as true the point the speech is trying to argue (“Paranormal phenomena exist because I’ve had an experience that can only be described as paranormal.”)

17. Advocating Policy Claims
Show a need for change (a problem)
Document serious harm (e,g., $ costs, illness, mental stress)
Document that extent of problem is significant
Advocate a solution
Describe a detailed plan for solving problem
Document that solution is feasible
Show solution will solve the problem
Show solution is workable
Show solution is desirable (benefits outweigh costs)

18. Problem-Solution Organization for Policy Speeches
I. Problem (Need)
Significance of problem (extent)
Seriousness of problem (harm)
II. Solution (Plan)
A. Specifics of plan (who needs to do what)
B. Workability
C. Additional benefits/desirability of plan

19. Problem-Cause-Solution Organization for Policy Speeches
Problem (Need)
A. Significance
B. Seriousness
Causes (Factors that lead to the problem)
Solution (Plan)
A. Specifics of plan (who needs to do what)
B. Workability
C. Additional benefits/desirability of plan

20. Monroe’s Motivated Sequence for Policy Speeches
Attention (in Introduction) – make topic relevant to audience
Need (problem) – show significance and seriousness
Satisfaction (solution) – plan & feasibility
Visualization – benefits of solution
Action – ask audience to act