Chapter 16 Making Arguments
Chapter Objectives
Define “argument,” and explain its three basic parts.
Describe Aristotle’s theory of persuasion.
Explain the three major types of claims and their differences.
Describe the most common types of fallacies.
Explain how persuasive speeches of fact, value, and policy differ.
List the most common types of policy speech patterns.
Lecture Outline
I. What’s an Argument?
A. Learning Objectives
1. Define “argument,” and explain its three basic parts.
3. Explain the three major types of claims and their differences.
1. Most speeches are fundamentally arguments.
C. Reasoning refers to the ability to make an inference or a judgment based on evidence.
D. Logic refers to the structure of reasoning.
E. Why Study Argumentation?
1. We pick up the rules for reasoning not only formally in our education but also as
members of our culture’s many conversations.
2. The rules of reasoning are often thought to manage emotions, feelings, and
passions. Many people formally study reasoning because they wish to keep strong
feelings at bay when discussing difficult, often emotionally charged, topics.
F. Understanding Informal Logic
1. Formal logic is an analytical study of reasoning processes and is frequently
limited to the rigorous examination of propositions and their meanings.
2. Informal logic, also called logical pragmatics, concerns the study of how people
argue on an everyday basis by leaving some things unstated.
3. A formal argument is one in which all its claims are made explicitly, often
deductively, from a general statement about a group of things to a conclusion about one
specific thing.
4. A syllogism is an argument that consists of a major premise, a minor premise,
and a conclusion drawn from those premises.
5. Most arguments leave something unstated because it is commonly understood
between the speaker and the listener.
6. The reason people are persuaded by a speaker is because they participate in the
creation of arguments with the speaker.
G. Contemporary Argument: Claims, Evidence, and Warrants
1. Philosopher Stephen Toulmin suggested that arguments can be understood as
having three parts: a claim, evidence, and the warrant that links the two.
a) Claims of fact argue that something is a fact.
(1) Speaking to inform typically centers on claims of fact.
b) Claims of value argue that something is good or bad.
1
(1) Speaking to celebrate tends to center on claims of value. For
(1) Speaking to persuade usually focuses on claims of policy and
secondarily on claims of value, because you want an audience to change
their beliefs, attitudes, values, or behaviors.
2. Reasoning is contextually bound. The rules of logic can change depending on the
physical setting of the speech, the kind of speech one is delivering, and the people who
are hearing it.
3. Claims of fact tend to have easily identifiable warrants, while claims of value and
policy are much more likely to have complex forms of reasoning.
4. Speakers are more likely to be unaware of their reasoning when an audience is
friendly and familiar to them, and are typically more careful about their reasoning when
making arguments to unfamiliar audiences.
H. Fallacies: When Reason Slips Up
1. A fallacy is an error in reasoning. In argumentation, a fallacy can make an
argument invalid and can be deliberate or accidental.
2. Speakers are prone to fallacious reasoning when making arguments about
something that they are passionate or emotional about.
3. There are a wide variety of types of errors in reasoning:
a)
Ad hominem fallacies reduce an issue to a person’s character unfairly.
b)
Ad baculum fallacies are a fear appeal that threatens force or violence if
the audience does not accept the will of the speaker.
c)
Ad misericordiam fallacies appeal to the misfortune and plight of
another.
d)
Ad populum fallacies appeal to popular feelings or commonly held
emotions about a claim or an assertion that is not supported by good evidence.
e)
Bandwagon fallacies are usually exciting and operate on the fear that
audiences may be missing out.
f)
Either-or fallacies make claims that you have only two choices in making
a decision, when there may in fact be many other choices.
g)
Non sequitur fallacies typically concern a conclusion that does not
logically follow from one or more premises.
h)
Red-herring fallacies purposely misdirect the attention of the audience.
i)
Slippery slope fallacies make the argument that something bad or
undesirable will inevitably happen.
j)
Straw-person fallacies occur when someone oversimplifies an
opponent’s argument or claims that the opponent argued something that she or
he didn’t.
II. Organizing Persuasive Speeches
A. Learning Objectives
1. Explain how persuasive speeches of fact, value, and policy differ.
2. List the most common types of policy speech patterns.
B. Since persuasion entails some degree of risk, you should make sure your reasons for
urging a decision about something hold up under logical scrutiny.
C. Organizing Persuasive Speeches of Fact
1. Persuasive speeches of fact usually entail some degree of uncertainty about
something that has happened, that will happen, or that should happen.
2. Because persuasive speeches of fact almost always concern an event of the past,
the most common forms of organization are temporal or topical, which are discussed in
chapter 7.
2
D. Organizing Persuasive Speeches of Value
1. Persuasive speeches of value concern a speaker‘s attempt to convince an audience
to make a judgment about something, to decide whether something is good or bad.
3. A paradigm is generally a pattern or model for something. In the speaking
1. Speeches of policy ask an audience to believe, judge, or do something, and
usually all three to some degree.
2. Scholars of persuasion have identified four basic organizational structures that
speakers have found useful and effective: Monroe’s motivated sequence, problem-
solution, refutation, and comparative advantage.
F. Persuading with Alan H. Monroe
1. Alan H. Monroe developed a persuasive speech organization specifically
designed for making policy arguments.
2. Monroe’s “motivated sequence” is a way to order a policy speech based on
audience psychology, and its primary goal is to elicit action from the audience.
a)
Attention: Open your speech by making your remarks immediately
relevant to the audience.
b)
Need or Problem: Before you can begin to outline your central policy
claim, you must demonstrate that there is a problem to be solved or that
something needs to be changed.
c)
Satisfaction: In this step of the speech sequence, you introduce your
central policy claim.
d)
Visualization: After you have exposed a need and suggested a solution,
you then help the audience imagine the outcome.
e)
Action: For this final step of your policy speech, you directly and
explicitly ask the audience to do something to actualize change.
G. Persuading with Problem-Solution
1. The sequence for persuading with problem-solving has a more widely used
structure.
a)
Problem: You tell your audience what the problem is, and perhaps
elaborate on its causes.
b)
Solution: You explain your policy for solving the problem and why it will
work.
H. Persuading with Refutation
1. This organizational pattern often assumes that the audience is at least marginally
aware of the speaker or topic and is a common pattern for debates and similar agonistic
2. Of all the organizational patterns, refutation is most prone to fallacious
reasoning, particularly the straw-person fallacy.
I. Persuading with Comparative Advantage
1. This form of organization is similar to refutation except that your posture is on
the offensive rather than the defensive, since the audience already agrees with you.
3
2. It is also based on a problem-solution structure; however, you put your emphasis
on the advantages or benefits of your policy in comparison to the alternatives.
a) Statement of the problem or need for change
b) Description of your policy or solution
c) Description of how your policy or solution is better than others
3. As with the refutation pattern, the comparative advantage structure is prone to
fallacious reasoning during the comparison step.
Key Terms
Argument: a claim or series of claims supported by evidence through reasoning.
Reasoning: the ability to make an inference or a judgment based on evidence.
Logic: the structure of reasoning.
Informal logic: the study of how people argue on an everyday basis by leaving some things unstated.
Syllogism: an argument that consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion drawn from
those premises.
Fallacy: an error in reasoning; in argumentation, a fallacy can makes an argument invalid.
Paradigm: generally a pattern or model for something. In the speaking situation, however, a paradigm
refers to the standards of judgment you provide to an audience to evaluate something; paradigms
reference the coordinates of a judgment of value.
Chapter Summary
Chapter 16: Making Arguments discusses arguments in detail, including what makes an argument
effective and what types of organizational patterns are suited for different types of arguments. The terms
argument, reasoning, logic, informal logic, and syllogism are defined early in the chapter to explain basic
concepts related to arguments before going into greater detail on more complex topics.
Next, the chapter presents the three parts of an argument: a claim, evidence, and a warrant. The three
types of claims are then defined and explained; these include claims of fact, claims of value, and claims of
policy.
The concept of a fallacy is introduced, as fallacies often occur in arguments, both intentionally and
unintentionally. Ten types of fallacies are defined. The chapter then moves on to the topic of organizing
persuasive speeches of fact, value, and policy. Organizing speeches of policy is more complex than
organizing speeches of fact or value; four basic organizational structures for speeches of policy that are
defined and explained are Monroe’s motivated sequence, problem-solution, refutation, and comparative
advantage.
Discussion Questions
1. Even though the textbook discusses a variety of appeals, it states that speakers still require reason and
logic to be successful persuaders. Do you agree that reason and logic are necessary today for successful
persuasion? Defend your answer with ideas from the textbook and provide examples to illustrate.
Copyright Macmillan Learning.
and tempering emotion with ethos. This conversation is a good time to reinforce the speaker’s
ethical obligations, including the obligation to avoid manipulating audiences through emotion.
2. After working at your new job for three or four months, you’ve started to question your boss’s
competence and leadership. Some of his decisions seem unethical, he tends to skip work, he leaves tasks
until the last minute, and you think he’s having an affair. When you share your doubts with a friend, she
accuses you of making an ad hominem fallacy. If you think she is correct, what can you do to strengthen
your position? If you disagree, explain your answer with ideas from the book and provide a
counterargument to support your point.
3. The chapter states that the kind of argument a speaker uses depends on the speaker’s goal. Informing
centers on claims of fact; celebrating centers on claims of value; and persuading centers on claims of
policy. Based on your understanding of genres and speech purpose, do you think that celebration speeches
are persuasive? Defend your answer with ideas from the chapter and use examples to illustrate.
4. A complete argument requires evidence and a warrant, but warrants are usually unstated, difficult to
discern, and based on informal logic instead of formal logic. Given this explanation of arguments, what
makes an argument more reasonable than a personal quarrel?
A: Even though arguments may rely on informal logic, they are still structured, they supply
reasons, and they include evidence. Informal arguments are effective because, as enthymemes,
Activities for in-class work or homework
1. Lecture/Activity: Inductive and deductive reasoning—face-to-face only
During the lecture on argument, the instructor will ask for volunteers who will demonstrate an example to
Copyright Macmillan Learning.
At the point where inductive reasoning will be explained,
A. Request at least three volunteers to come to the front and be measured by height.
B. Have each person mark their height on the board, write the figure, and sign their name.
C. After everyone’s finished, have the class approximate the average.
D. Explain that the procedure illustrates inductive reasoning because (i) the volunteers are the
particulars; (ii) and the average height is the general observation derived from the particulars.
Extend the lesson: Hasty generalization
Call on tall male volunteers only, which will likely skew the height. Present the lecture using
gender neutral language and avoid drawing attention to the non-representative pool of volunteers.
Try to discuss the structure of inductive reasoning before hasty generalization is discussed. Subtly
C. Explain that arguments support each other and build on each other.
D. Give another example unrelated to height. Select a rule from the syllabus to serve as the
general principle.
E. Note that, technically, step two is also inductive because it generalizes about an attribute found
in a pool that should then apply to a specific case. The illustration’s accuracy depends on how
step two is presented. Emphasize informal logic, how warrants work in syllogisms, and then
reinforce with a clear example of deductive argument (the syllabus example). Non-sequitur
fallacies could be discussed.
2. Concept mapping arguments with Toulmin
This activity follows the principle that manipulatives encourage student engagement and learning,
Copyright Macmillan Learning.
(See Chapter 4 activities for links about concept maps and additional tips about managing manipulatives
such as craft supplies in activities.)
Materials:
1. Many jumbo craft sticks or tongue depressors, enough for each student to have between three
and seven.
3. Colored markers.
4. An editorial or speech for analysis.
Instructions:
1. Distribute supplies: Make sure that each student has between 3 and 7 craft sticks, some markers, and a
2. Lecture: During the lecture, keep the Toulmin model covered and pause before showing it or
3. Make the model: Keep the chart hidden. When finished with the lecture about evidence-warrant-claim,
students should arrange their sticks to show the relationship of the three parts. The chapter has two images
4. Lecture again: Reveal the chart from the chapter or lecture notes, have students compare again, and
answer additional questions. Check for understanding. Emphasize that the sticks represent an argument
3. Extending Toulmin activity #2
7
Copyright Macmillan Learning.
When applying the model, use the craft sticks and sticky notes instead of writing on the board or paper.
So, if the class is analyzing an editorial, students should write down key points on sticky notes. Then they
4. Student example: Monroe’s motivated sequence speech evaluation
Before showing the video, go over the assignment sheet with the students to make sure they understand
the criteria. Using the actual rubric to evaluate the speech makes the process concrete for students so they
can envision their own speeches more clearly. The discussion prompt can be modified to most class
formats and activity structures.
Sample Monroe’s speech on nutrition: search “sample persuasive speech monroe motivated sequence
kelly kulig.”
Prompt:
After viewing the video, how well do you think the speaker motivated the audience to action by
using the steps of Monroe’s motivated sequence? Support your answer with ideas from the
5. Analyze a persuasive message for claims of fact, value, and policy.
Students will evaluate an episode of the podcast, Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe, to identify claims of
fact, value, and policy.
Since the podcast is an unstructured conversation, identifying components of the arguments will be a
2. List the major claims raised in the podcast.
4. Identify the thesis.
6. Answer the discussion prompt.
Prompt:
After listening to the podcast, what claims do you think the team used to defend their thesis?
What categories did claims fall under? Overall, what type of message is this podcast: fact, value,
or policy? Defend your answer and provide examples to support your position.
Teaching Tips
For new instructors who need help teaching argumentation:
1. Consider making the word “opinion” off limits during the initial discussion of reasoning. That term
seems to create confusion among the various argumentation concepts. Once it’s in the discussion, students
3. Reinforcing the distinction between form and content can also help. Students tend to respond from
emotion and then shoehorn their answer into an argument. Pulling them out of content to focus on form
can help them identify flaws more easily.
4. If instructors used the craft stick activity, save the sticks and reuse them. Students, especially post-
millennials, process the arguments more quickly with them than by writing them on paper.
Content Presentation Ideas
1. Finding Fallacies
This assignment will familiarize students with fallacies.
9
2. Persuasive Speech of Fact or Value
This assignment helps students differentiate persuasive speeches of fact from persuasive speeches of
3. Persuasive Speech of Policy: Which organizing sequence will you get?
This assignment gives students experience giving a persuasive speech of policy.
Preparing for the Assignment
Create a set of index cards with one organization sequence noted on each: Monroe’s motivated sequence,
problem-solution, refutation, and comparative advantage. Shuffle the cards and give one card to each
More Resources
10
1. Monroe’s motivated sequence videos:
Thorough explanation of the steps and brief discussion of policy speeches; good for online or
flipped classes: search “monroe’s motivated sequence video flatgrin youtube.”
Student Monroe’s speech on the Pacific Garbage Patch; the speaker explains what she’s doing in
each step; good for online or flipped classes: search “presenting effectively with monroe’s
motivated sequence video.”
Monroe’s motivated sequence lesson on Dr. Sunny’s online speech course website; brief
overview of the steps: search “monroe’s motivated sequence Dr. Sunny’s online speech course.”
2. Introduction to the Toulmin model. Good for flipped or online classes. The video is easy to follow. It
explains both the first and second triad. Only the first triad of Toulmin’s model is covered in the chapter.
Search “toulmin model of argument video.”
3. Explanation of types of persuasive claims and speeches: fact, value, and policy. Easy to follow. Good
for flipped or online classes. Search “kp’s speech class claims.”
4. Center for Innovation in Legal Education: search “center for innovation in legal education youtube.”
The Center has a channel with a large collection of videos designed for law students. Many of the videos
focus on critical thinking and specifically on argumentation. See the video on inductive and deductive
arguments: search “center for innovation in legal education deductive and inductive arguments.”
5. Kevin DeLaPlante’s YouTube channel has several brief videos explaining fallacies: search “critical
thinker academy youtube.”
11