A POCKET GUIDE TO PUBLIC SPEAKING 5 TH

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

Methods of Persuasion • Building credibility • Using evidence • Reasoning • Appealing to emotions

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. ”

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. ”

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. ”

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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