153
CHAPTER 12 BEING PERSUASIVE
CHAPTER 12 SUMMARY
Chapter 12 examines the material that is added to information to make a speech persuasive and also
touches on “the dark side of persuasion,” also known as “manipulation.” Three persuasive proofs
(ethos, pathos, and logos) are defined, and how they work to support the persuasive force of a speech
is explained. Six types of arguments are presented, and key logical fallacies are described. The chapter
explains the dialogic approach to addressing counterarguments in a persuasive speech.
CHAPTER 12 OUTLINE
I. Introduction: Giving the audience proofs
A. Persuasion, using speech to influence actions of others
1. Better arguments (reason)
2. More believable arguments (credibility)
3. See argument from speaker’s perspective (identification)
B. Manipulation
1. Using deception
2. Making unsound arguments appear to be strong
3. Appear to be someone you are not
C. Long history
1. Aristotle (Rhetoric, substance of high-quality dialogue) (FAQ)
2. Some Greeks skeptical because used for manipulation
D. Examples
1. Oral and written (paper, op-ed, blogs)
2. Public life (local school board or city council meeting)
d. Practical
e. Not belittle others
3. Pathos
a. Appeal to emotions of audience
b. Frame of mind to accept point of view
c. Reasonable to feel that way, resulting beliefs and actions
4. Logos
a. Appeal based on reasoning and support to persuade audience
b. Stats, surveys, polls, authorities, historical evidence, others
154
c. Orderly sequence of claims, reasons, conclusions = logical case
II. Ethos: Why audiences should believe you
A. Believable, reliable, trustworthy
1. From Greek for “habits”
2. Related to expertise
3. Explain reasons for speaking and credentials to build ethos
4. Inclusive “us” for rhetorical evidence
B. Audience values commitment of speaker
C. Classical dimensions of ethos
1. Aristotle
a. Quality of speaker
b. Also quality imputed by audience
c. Three classical elements
2. Good judgment (common sense)
a. Fair and balanced treatment of opposing views
b. Thoughtful adaptation to listeners
4. Goodwill is having the (listeners’ best interests in mind)
5. Credibility factors (FAQ)
D. Why speaking on topic
1. Speaker and audience interests converge
2. Explain your interest in topic (avoid audience speculation)
3. Immediacy through personal story
a. Firsthand experiences and concerns
b. Balance and appropriateness
III. Pathos: The framework of feelings
A. “Pathetic proofs”
B. Appeal to appropriate audience emotions
1. Not too much
a. Might impugn objectivity
b. Could damage ethos
2. Not too little (boring)
C. Consistency to presentation
2. Sympathy
a. Argue by example (one of best ways)
b. Invite audience to identify with affected people
155
3. Nobility
a. Own best instincts
b. Frames values, asks audience to live up to them
c. Compliments and challenges audience
4. Empowerment
a. Pathos-oriented appeal
b. Focus on what audience can do
c. Reaffirms that audience is not powerless
i. Can make big and small changes toward solving problem
E. Appeals to negative emotions
1. Appeals to fear
a. Identify threat, explain how to prevent harm
b. Gauge to audience
2. Outrage (related)
3. Can backfire if fear too high
F. Framing
1. Used throughout speech
2. Emotional reactions = guide to interpretation of speakers, situations
3. Perspective for audience members (usually values or judgments)
4. Communicate frame via mental image or emotional appeal
5. Varies by audience
a. Ask audience to listen “as”
b. Consistent with rhetorical audience, particular set of interests
IV. Logos: Who needs an argument?
A. Argument = claim backed by reasons (logic and evidence) to support conclusion
1. Evidence
2. Statistics
3. Data
4. Logical necessity
5. Expert opinion
6. Other rigorous proof
B. Good argument
1. Matter of choices
V. Making connections: The process of reasoning
A. Linking things (claim and some kind of support/justification)
156
VI. Types of arguments
A. Argument from examples = inductive reasoning
1. Claim based on many specific and varied examples
a. Time
b. Populations
c. Circumstances
2. Stats clearly connected to claim
3. Audience knows argument
4. Tailor strength of claim to strength of evidence
5. Most useful to support general claim as part of a larger argument
B. Argument from form (formal reasoning) = deductive reasoning
1. Typically if-then arguments (likely to be convincing)
2. Huge topic; briefly covered here
3. Premises followed by conclusion
a. Tight relation among between premises and conclusion
b. If premises true, conclusion must be true
4. Challenge = justify premises
a. Logic
b. Nature of occasion
c. Reason from authority
d. Reason from examples
5. Must be clear, not long chain of reasoning
C. Argument from causes (causal reasoning)
b. Strong causal claim = clearly proven mechanism
i. Usually scientific explanation of physical/biological process
D. Argument from analogy (analogic reasoning)
1. Claim that similarity exists between two objects or actions
2. Explicit comparison
a. Metaphor = implicit comparison
3. Thinking through analogies, establishing similarity (Remix)
4. Appropriate analogy (start with familiar)
a. Literal analogy (factual basis)
b. Figurative analogy (suggestive and useful)
E. Argument from sign
1. Claim that one event, situation, or attribute precedes another
2. Future prediction (often in economics)
3. Useful for highly correlated but not causally related events
4. Conventional sign
a. Human-created symbols (SOS, white flag)
157
b. Usually not for persuasive speeches
5. Realistic sign
a. Relationship in actual world
6. Signs require support because inferred relationship might be false or inappropriate
F. Argument from authority
1. Claim that a statement is true because of expertise of its source
2. Factual claim support
a. Sometimes value
b. Mostly factual, easier to prove
3. Authorities must not be biased or self-serving
VII. When reasons go bad
A. Argument abuse = fallacies
1. Fallacy = error in process of coming to argumentative conclusion
2. Distinguish between truth of claim and process for arriving at it
3. Four basic types of fallacies
B. Fallacies of appeal
1. Appeal to something inappropriate to proving specific claim
a. Fairly common strategy for glossing over weakness of claim
b. Appeal to preconceived notions
c. Always appeal to something just outside of relevant to proving claim
2. Ad hominem (appeal to the person)
a. Indictment of person’s intelligence or character
b. Circumstantial ad hominem (biased by circumstances)
a. Because have believed in the past, belief is justified
b. Always have done something one way
C. Fallacies of causation
1. Among most common kinds of fallacious reasoning
a. Causation = linking events
b. “But for” test in law
c. Correlation/sequence does not = causation
2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
a. After that therefore because of that
b. Sequence in time alone is not enough for causation
3. Inferring causation from correlation fallacy
a. Two things happen together, therefore one causes the other
b. Any number of other explanations for correlation
158
c. Complex correlation fallacy (presuming one of many causes is only cause)
D. Inductive fallacies
1. Hasty generalization
a. Without appropriate size of sample
b. General statement based on insufficient evidence
c. Many forms of discrimination justified based on this fallacy
2. Slothful induction
a. Opposite of hasty generalization
b. Refuse to make generalization in face of something supported by most facts
c. Facts are in, reasonable people cannot help but conclude, yet resist
d. Definition of insanity = doing same thing repeatedly and expecting different result
3. Inappropriate sample
a. Pick bad samples on which to base generalization
b. Example: political polling data
E. Begging the question (fallacy of circular reasoning)
VIII. What about the other side: Dealing with counterarguments
A. Argument in opposition to speaker’s or someone else’s argument
B. Tend to deemphasize counterarguments
1. Makes speaker uncomfortable
2. Concerned with getting own way/deceiving
3. Speeches = dialogue, so approach counterarguments differently
C. Recognizing counterarguments = persuasive
1. Respect audience is smart
2. Add to credibility
a. Defines counterargument for audience
5. Possible answers to counterarguments
a. Narrow claim to deal with counterargument
b. Comparative advantage of speaker’s argument
READING TARGET FOR CHAPTER 12
This is the instructor-assigned goal for students to consider in their writing, discussion, and individual
159
reflections:
Read the chapter to understand how persuasive speaking differs from informative speaking.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES FOR CHAPTER 12
General strategies and techniques
Use the Questions for Review and Questions for Discussion at the end of Chapter 12 as prompts
for writing or discussion (in class, online, before and after class).
Use the Try It activities in the chapter as the basis for points of discussion, in-class activities, or
assigned work outside of class.
Chapter learning objective: Clarify the difference between information and proofs
Differentiate between informative and persuasive speeches. Provide the students with a list of
specific purposes (without including the general goal of informing or persuading), and ask them
to identify whether the speech is persuasive or informative. For example, ask people to buy
post-consumer recycled paper products (persuasive), explain how paper is recycled
Chapter learning objective: Identify the dimensions of ethos and why they matter
for a speaker
What makes you trustworthy? Show a short speech (from YouTube, TED.com, or MindTap) in
class. Tell students to write their opinions of the speaker’s trustworthiness and their reasons for
those opinions. Create a large group list, and identify the characteristics that were identified by
most students as important in their decisions. Discuss how this list relates to their own class
presentations.
Why should I believe you? Ask students to rank the list of credibility factors listed in the FAQ box,
“What factors influence a speaker’s credibility?” Compare rankings in small groups, and ask
students to provide their reasons for their top two credibility factors.
What it takes to change. Ask individuals or groups of students to generate a list of what factors
influence your decision when someone asks you to do something (e.g., mood, who is asking,
whether you have time, whether you owe a favor, whether there are good reasons to do it, how
you might benefit). Which ones relate to the person asking or the speaker?
Chapter learning objective: Assess the role of emotion, or pathos, in persuasion
and the role of frames in producing emotion
Find a speech that motivates you. Ask students to find a speech that motivates them and to
write a short summary of the qualities that are motivating and the emotions that they felt when
160
listening to the speech. Instruct students to post their links and summaries online or to
MindTap. Alternatively, tell students to work in small groups, find a speech that they all agree is
motivating, and generate reasons why it is motivational. What does the speaker say, and does
that elicit emotion?
Ask students to reflect on a time when they “misinterpreted” a situation. How did they learn of
a new framework for interpreting the event?
Show the “don’t judge too quickly” commercials to demonstrate how information changes our
Chapter learning objective: Compare and contrast the purposes of reasoning, or
logos, in persuasive speeches
Developing a complete argument. Review the four versions of Fred’s speech about file sharing
services (included in the chapter) to demonstrate how an argument needs a reason (version 2)
with supporting evidence (version 3) and relevance to the audience (version 4). Provide students
with an introduction, main point, and conclusion (version 1) on another topic, and tell them to
develop the complete argument (version 4), either by finding research online or creating
hypothetical support.
Identify the claim. Read the following short arguments to the class. Ask the students to identify
which statement is the claim and which statement is the support.
▪ It is cold outside, so I will wear a jacket. (The clause “I will wear a jacket” is the claim.)
▪ It is 23 degrees outside. It’s cold! (“It’s cold” is the claim.)
▪ It’s cold! It is only 23 degrees outside. (“It’s cold” is the claim.)
▪ Since he is a dangerous criminal, we know he carries a weapon. (“He carries a weapon” is
the claim.)
▪ We know he carries a weapon so he must be a dangerous criminal (The clause “he must be a
dangerous criminal” is the claim.)
Chapter learning objective: Differentiate among fallacies and explain why they
represent poor reasoning
Chapter learning objective: Choose different types of arguments, according to
161
when they are most effective
Tailor the strength of the claim. Assign a topic such as the amount of fun to be had on campus or
the number of academic support services available to students. Ask students to work with a
partner to write four to five claims in descending order of strength (see example in textbook
that relates to restaurants in Milwaukee). Thus, the first statement would have an abundance of
support, but the final claim would have very little support.
When students compose persuasive speeches, ask them to identify the type of reasoning that
Chapter learning objective: Explain the benefits of addressing counterarguments
and demonstrate how to deal with them
Ask the students to work in small groups to construct a possible persuasive speech thesis for a
topic such as healthy food or financial habits of college students. Next, have the groups
generate a list of all of the counterarguments that people might have. Discuss how the
counterargument could be addressed.
Ask students to recall the last argument (speech or personal communication) that they heard
and then list all of the counterarguments that they had. Did the speaker address the
counterarguments? What were the results? If not addressed, were the counterarguments a
distraction for the listener, or did they undermine the persuasive goal? How did the audience
member deal with the unaddressed counterarguments?
MINDTAP AND CENGAGE RESOURCES FOR CHAPTER 12
Chapter 12 support materials in MindTap include the following:
Quiz questions that reinforce student learning and understanding
Observe—Watch a speech to gain insights into public speaking concepts.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS FOR CHAPTER 12
Argument: statement or claim backed up with reasons
162
Argument from analogy: a claim that a similarity exists between two objects or actions
Argument from authority: bringing the expertise of an authority on the subject to bear on the claim
Argument from form: deductive, or if–then, reasoning
Argument from signs: showing that some witnessed events are signs of a future event
Causal argument: a claim that one event, situation, or attribute causes another
Pathos: attempt to put the audience into a frame of mind that shows how it is reasonable to feel a
certain way about a topic and how those feelings translate into actions and beliefs
Persuasion: use of speech to influence the actions or beliefs of others
Positive emotion: feelings that audience members want to experience, such as sympathy, nobility,
and empowerment
Proofs: persuasive tools or persuasive appeals (ethos, logos, and pathos)
Reasoning: linking a claim to the support for it
Reasoning from authority: bringing the expertise of an authority on the subject to bear on the
claim