1. A POCKET GUIDE TO PUBLIC SPEAKING 5TH EDITION Chapter 24
Constructing the Persuasive Speech

2. Methods of Persuasion Building credibility Using evidence Reasoning
Appealing to emotions

3. Ethos – Credibility
The audience's perception of whether a speaker is qualified to speak on a given topic.
Ethos – The name used by Aristotle for what modern students of communication refer to as credibility.
Factors of credibility – Competence and Character
Competence: How an audience regards a speaker’s intelligence, expertise, and knowledge of the subject.
Character: How an audience regards a speaker’s sincerity, trustworthiness, and concern for the well-being of the audience.

4. Types of Credibility
Initial Credibility: The credibility of a speaker before she or he starts to speak.
Derived Credibility: The credibility of a speaker produced by everything she or he says and does during the speech.
Terminal Credibility: The credibility of a speaker at the end of the speech.
Tips for enhancing credibility
Explain your competence
Establish common ground with your audience
Deliver your speeches fluently, expressively, and with conviction

5. Pathos – Emotional Appeals
Appeals that are intended to make listeners feel sad, angry, guilty, afraid, happy, proud, sympathetic, reverent, or the like.
Pathos – The name used by Aristotle for what modern students of communication refer to as emotional appeal.
Tips for generating emotional appeals:
Use emotional language
Develop vivid examples
Speak with sincerity and conviction
Using emotional appeals ethically:
Make sure emotional appeal is appropriate to the speech topic
Do not substitute emotional appeal for evidence and reasoning

6. Logos – Logical Appeals
The name used by Aristotle for the logical appeal of a speaker. The two major elements of logos are evidence and reasoning.
Evidence: Supporting materials used to prove or disprove something.
Tips for using evidence
Use specific evidence
Use novel evidence
Use evidence from credible sources
Make clear the point of your evidence
Reasoning: The process of drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence.

7. Four Types of Reasoning
#1) Inductive Reasoning: Reasoning that moves from particular facts to a general conclusion.
Guidelines for Reasoning from Specific Instances
Avoid hasty generalizations
If your evidence does not justify a sweeping conclusion, qualify your argument
Reinforce your argument with statistics or testimony
#2) Deductive Reasoning: Reasoning that moves from a general principle to a specific conclusion.
Guidelines for Reasoning from Principle
Make sure listeners will accept your general principle
Provide evidence to support your minor premise

8. Four Types of Reasoning
#3) Causal Reasoning: Reasoning that seeks to establish the relationship between causes and effects.
Guidelines for Causal Reasoning
Avoid the fallacy of false cause (see below for details)
Do not assume that events have only a single cause
#4) Reasoning by Analogy: Reasoning in which a speaker compares two similar cases and infers that what is true for the first case is also true for the second.
Guidelines for Analogical Reasoning
Above all, make sure the two cases being compared are essentially alike

9. Construct Sound Arguments
Three elements to an argument
Claim or proposition (states your conclusion)
Based on evidence
Evidence (substantiates the claim)
Warrant (provides reasons evidence is valid)

10. Identify the Nature of Your Claims
Claim of fact
Declares something is true or will happen
Claim of value
Addresses issues of judgment
Claim of policy
Recommends a specific course of action

11. Use Convincing Evidence
External evidence
Examples, narratives, testimony, facts, statistics
Audience’s preexisting knowledge/opinions
Reaffirm listeners’ own attitudes, beliefs, values
Speaker expertise
Offer in conjunction with other evidence

12. Select Warrants Motivational warrants Authoritative warrants
Appeals to audience’s needs and emotions
Based on pathos
Authoritative warrants
Appeals to source credibility
Based on ethos

13. Select Warrants (cont.)
Substantive warrants
Uses factual evidence to justify argument
Based on logos
Two types: warrant by cause and warrant by analogy

14. Counterarguments: Addressing the Other Side
One-sided message
Does not mention opposing claims
Two-sided message
Mentions opposing points of view
Sometimes refutes them
Generally more persuasive

15. Counterarguments: Addressing the Other Side (cont.)
Ignoring opposing arguments might damage your credibility.
You don’t need to acknowledge/refute all counterarguments.
Raise/refute the most important counterclaims.

16. Fallacies
A fallacy is an error in reasoning. The following are types of fallacies:
Hasty generalization
False cause
Invalid analogy
Red herring
Ad hominem
Either-or
Bandwagon
Slippery slope

17. Fallacies
Hasty Generalization: A fallacy in which a speaker jumps to a general conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence.
Example:“Last year alone three members of our state legislature were convicted of corruption. We can conclude, then, that all of our state’s politicians are corrupt.”
False Cause: A fallacy in which a speaker mistakenly assumes that because one event follows another, the first event is the cause of the second.
Example: “I'm sure the stock market will rise this year. It usually goes up when the American League wins the World Series.”

18. Fallacies (Continued)
Invalid Analogy: An analogy in which the two cases being compared are not essentially alike.
Example:“Of course Lisheng can prepare great Italian food; his Chinese cooking is fabulous.”
Red Herring: A fallacy that introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject under discussion.
Example:“Why should we worry about endangered animal species when thousands of people are killed in car accidents each year?”
Ad Hominem: A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute.
Example: “He has a number of solid proposals, but we should remember that he is not a god fearing man.”

19. Fallacies (Continued)
Either-Or: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist.
Example:“The government can either create jobs or reduce services for the poor, but we can’t have both.”
Bandwagon: Assumes that because something is popular, it is therefore good, correct, or desirable.
Example:“The President must be correct in his approach to domestic policy; after all, polls show that 60 percent of the people support him.”
Slippery Slope: Assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented.
Example: “If we pass laws prohibiting assault rifles then the government will eventually pass laws prohibiting all firearms.”

20. Types of Logical Fallacies (cont.)
Non sequitur (“does not follow”)
Reasoning and conclusion are unconnected
Appeal to tradition
Suggests agreement because it is the way something has always been done

21. Strengthen Your Case with Organization
Problem-solution pattern
Used when discussing claims of policy
Two-point pattern
I. Problem (define what it is)
II. Solution (offer method for overcoming problem)

22. Strengthen Your Case with Organization (cont.)
Problem-cause-solution pattern
I. Nature of the problem
II. Reasons for the problem
III. Proposed solution

23. Strengthen Your Case with Organization (cont.)
Problem-cause-solution-feasibility pattern
I. Nature of the problem
II. Reasons for the problem
III. Proposed solution
IV. Evidence of solution’s feasibility

24. Strengthen Your Case with Organization (cont.)
Monroe’s motivated sequence
I. Attention
Addresses listeners’ core concerns
II. Need
Isolates the issue to be addressed

25. Strengthen Your Case with Organization (cont.)
Monroe’s motivated sequence (cont.)
III. Satisfaction
Identifies the solution
IV. Visualization
Provides a vision of anticipated outcomes
V. Action
Asks audience members to act

26. Strengthen Your Case with Organization (cont.)
Comparative advantage pattern
Used to show your proposal’s superiority
Best when audience agrees solution is needed
Make sure to identify familiar alternatives

27. Strengthen Your Case with Organization (cont.)
Refutation pattern
I. State the opposing position
II. Describe why opposing claim is faulty
III. Offer arguments/evidence for your position
IV. Contrast your position with opposing claim