25 Developing Arguments for the Persuasive Speech
<A> OBJECTIVES
To understand the features of an argument.
To select among three types of claims made in arguments.
To choose the types of evidence that best support your claim.
To select among different types of warrants to gain acceptance for
your claims.
To anticipate and plan on addressing counterarguments to your position.
To recognize that different types of audiences require different counterargument strategies.
To beware of logical fallacies that will weaken your arguments.
<A> CHAPTER CONTENT OUTLINE
I.
Developing arguments for the persuasive speech
A. The persuasive power of
a speech depends upon the strength of its arguments.
II.
What is an argument?
A.
An argument is a stated position, with support for or
against an idea or issue; it
consists of a claim, evidence, and warrants.
B.
Speakers who present arguments ask listeners to accept a conclusion about some state
of affairs by providing evidence and reasons explaining why that evidence logically
supports the
claim.
1. A claim, also called a
proposition, states the speaker’s conclusion about some
state of affairs. To make
a claim believable, the speaker must provide proof or
evidence in support of the claim.
2.
Evidence
is supporting material that provides grounds for belief in the
speaker’s claim. It may take the form of examples, narratives, testimony, or
facts and statistics. If the
evidence is believable, then the claim is more likely
to be accepted by the audience.
3. A warrant
provides reasons that the evidence is valid or supports the claim.
Warrants help to substantiate in the audience’s mind the link between the
claim and the evidence, and they reflect the assumptions, beliefs, or principles
that underlie the claim.
a.
Diagramming
your argument allows you to visualize how
evidence
and warrants can be presented in support of your
claim.
i. Write down the claim.
ii. List each possible piece
of evidence
you have in support
of that claim.
iii. Write down the corresponding warrants linking the
evidence to the
claim.
III.
Types of claims
used in persuasive speeches
A.
Depending on the nature
of the issue being addressed in the persuasive speech, claims
can be
classified as claims of fact, claims of value, or claims of policy. Persuasive
speeches can contain one or more types of claims.
1. Claims of fact
focus on whether something is or is not true or whether
something will or will not happen. Claims of fact usually address one of two
kinds of questions: those for which two or more controversial, competing
answers exist; or those for which an answer does not yet exist (speculative
claim).
2.
Claims of value
deal with issues of judgment, showing why something is right
or wrong, good or bad, worthy or unworthy. Thus the speaker is not
attempting to prove truth, but his or her claims still require
evidence. This
evidence tends to be more subjective than factual.
3.
Claims of policy
recommend that a specific course of action be taken, or
approved of, by
an audience. A claim of policy speaks to an “ought”
condition, proposing that certain better outcomes would be realized if the
proposed condition was met.
IV.
Types of evidence
A. There
are several types of evidence that speakers can use to persuade
audiences to
accept their claims.
B.
Secondary sources, or “external evidence,” is the
most common form of evidence,
and is any information (e.g., examples, narratives, testimony, facts, and statistics) in
support of a claim that originates with sources other than the audience or the speaker.
This type of evidence is most powerful when the speaker cites relevant, timely, and
credible information that the audience has not previously used in forming an opinion.
C. Arguments can sometimes be built on the basis of the speaker’s own knowledge and
opinions or expertise. This will work only if the audience believes the speaker has the
authority or credibility to address the matter.
V.
Types of
warrants
A. There
are three different types of warrants, or reasoning, that speakers can use in their
arguments: motivational, authoritative, and substantive.
Motivational warrants
use the needs, desires, emotions, and values of
audience members as the basis for accepting evidence as support for a
claim,
and thus accepting the claim itself. In other words, this type of warrants uses
pathos.
a. Most motivational warrants are implied rather than stated outright.
b. Career success, physical attractiveness, financial security, and happy
families are
additional needs and values that can operate as
motivational warrants.
Authoritative warrants
rely on an audience’s beliefs about the credibility or
acceptability of a source
of evidence. The success or failure of authoritative
warrants rests on how highly the audience
regards the authority figure.
Substantive warrants
operate on the basis of the audience’s beliefs about the
reliability of your factual evidence.
Two common types of substantive
warrants are
causation and analogy.
a. Warrants by cause
use
causal reasoning
to offer a cause-and-effect
relationship as proof of a claim. It is important to make relevant and
accurate assertions about cause and effect.
b. Warrants by analogy
use
reasoning by analogy
to compare two
similar cases and imply that what is true in one case is true in the other.
VI.
Counterarguments:
Addressing the other side
A. Addressing the other side of the argument is important because
all attempts at
persuasion are subject to counter persuasion.
1.
One-sided messages
do not mention opposing claims. Two-sided messages
acknowledge opposing points of view, while sometimes refuting them.
Research suggests two-sided messages are more persuasive if the
speaker
successfully can refute opposing viewpoints.
2. If listeners are aware of counterclaims, and the speaker ignores them, he or
she runs the risk of losing credibility with the audience. On the other hand,
speakers do not always have to address counterclaims directly. Ethically, you
can ignore
counterclaims that don’t significantly
weaken your argument.
B. A logical fallacy
is a false or erroneous statement, or an invalid or deceptive line of
reasoning. Fallacies in argument harm the quality
of speeches. Speakers should be
aware of several fallacies in order to avoid making them in speeches. Listeners should
also be aware of fallacious arguments in order to be able to identify them in the
speeches of others.
1.
Begging the question is a fallacy in which an argument is stated in such a way
that it cannot help but be true, even though no evidence has been presented.
The answer to the question raised by the claim simply restates the claim.
2. Ad hominem arguments target a person instead of the issue at hand in an
attempt to incite an audience’s dislike for that person.
3.
Bandwagoning is the practice of using unsubstantiated general opinions as the
basis for a claim.
4.
Either-or fallacy poses an argument stated in terms of two alternatives only,
regardless of other options.
5. Red herring fallacies rely on irrelevant premises for the conclusion.
6. Hasty
generalizations use an isolated instance to make an unwarranted general
conclusion.
7. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (post hoc) arguments suggest that a causal
relationship exists between
two states or events due to the order in which
events occurred, rather than considering other
facts. Also called the fallacy
of
false cause.
8.
Faulty analogies are
arguments claiming that two phenomena are alike
when
in fact they are not similar enough to warrant comparison, leading to a weak
misleading, and/or illogical comparison.
9.
Non sequiturs are
arguments in which the conclusion does not connect to the
reasoning; they “do not follow.”
10.
Slippery slope fallacies occur when a speaker makes a faulty assumption that
one case
will lead to another event or a series of events or actions.
Appeal to tradition arguments suggest that the audience should agree with the
claim because that is the way it has always been done and is therefore
“right.”
11.
<A> KEY
TERMS
claim
(proposition) the declaration of a state of affairs, often stated as a thesis statement, in
which a speaker attempts to prove something.
evidence
supporting material that provides grounds for belief.
warrants core components of an argument that serve to justify the links made between
the claim and the evidence.
reasoning
the process of drawing inferences or conclusions from evidence.
claim of fact an argument that focuses on whether something is or is not true or whether
something will or will not happen.
speculative claim
a type
of claim of fact that addresses questions for which answers are
not yet available.
claim of value
a claim that address issues of judgment.
claim of policy a
claim that recommend that a specific course of action be taken, or
approved, by
an audience.
cultural norms
a
group’s rules for behavior.
cultural premises
culturally specific values about identity and relationships.
motivational warrants warrants that use the needs, desires, emotions, and values of
audience members as the
basis for accepting some evidence in support of
a
claim.
authoritative warrants warrants that appeal to the credibility the audience assigns to the
source of the
evidence; also called ethos-based appeals.
either-or fallacy a fallacious argument that is stated in terms of two alternatives only,
even though there may be multiple ways of viewing the issue.
substantive warrants warrants that rely on factual
evidence to link a claim to evidence;
see also warrants by cause
and warrants by analogy.
warrants by cause (causal reasoning) the provision of cause-effect relationships as proof of a
claim.
warrants by analogy (reasoning by analogy) a statement, based on the comparison of two
similar cases, that infers that what is true in one case is true in the other.
The assumption
is that the characteristics of case
A and case
B are
so similar, if not the same, that what is
true for
B must also be true for
A.
one-sided message
an argument that does not mention opposing claims.
two-sided message an argument that mentions opposing points of view, and sometimes refutes
them.
logical fallacy a statement that is either false or
erroneous or is based on an invalid or deceptive
line of reasoning.
begging the question
a fallacious argument presented in such a way that it is necessarily
true, even though no evidence has been presented.
bandwagoning a fallacious argument that presents itself as true because
“general
opinion”
supports it.
ad hominem argument a form of fallacious argument that targets people instead of
issues and attempts to incite an audience’s dislike for an opponent.
red herring fallacy a fallacy of reasoning in which the speaker relies on irrelevant
information to support an argument.
What is an argument, and what is its role in the persuasive speech? What is reasoning?
An argument is a stated position, with support, for or against an idea or issue. An argument
consists of a claim, evidence, and warrants. In the persuasive speech, the speaker uses arguments
to ask listeners to accept a conclusion about some state of affairs. An argument consists of a
claim, evidence, and warrants.
hasty generalization
a fallacy of reasoning in which the speaker attempts to support a
claim by
asserting that a
particular piece of evidence (an isolated case) is true for all
individuals or conditions concerned.
post hoc ergo propter hoc (“post hoc”) an argument suggesting that a
casual relationship exists
between two states or events due to the order in which the events occurred, rather than
taking other
factors into consideration (e.g., since
Event A
followed Event B, Event B
must have caused Event A). Also called “fallacy of false cause.”
faulty analogy an inaccurate or misleading comparison suggesting that because two things are
similar in some ways, they
are necessarily similar in others.
non sequitur
an
argument in which the conclusion is not connected to the reasoning
(literally, “does not follow”).
slippery slope
an argument based on a
faulty assumption that one case will necessarily
lead to a series of events or actions.
appeal to tradition
a fallacy of reasoning in which the speaker argues for the truth of a
claim based solely on common practices in the past.
CHAPTER STUDY GUIDE
I. SUMMARY QUESTIONS
Reasoning
is the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking,
especially
in orderly or
rational ways. It is the process of critical thinking
that we try to engage in throughout our
everyday lives and in our roles as public speakers and active listeners. Reasoning can also be
defined as the process of showing audience members why they should accept your claims and
evidence.
What is a claim and what are the various types of claims that can be posed in a persuasive
speech?
A claim
states the speaker’s conclusion about some state of affairs. A persuasive speech can
What are the various types of evidence that can be used in a persuasive speech?
The persuasive speaker can make use of three different types of evidence in support of his or her
What three tests of evidence can be applied to evaluate the strength of a speaker’s
evidence?
As you identify
and apply
evidence to a claim, keep in mind the three tests of evidence: Is the
What is a warrant and
what are the various types of
warrants that can be used in a
persuasive speech?
A warrant is a line of reasoning that allows audience members to evaluate
whether in fact the
evidence does support the claim. The
motivational warrant uses the needs, desires, emotions,
What are some
techniques for addressing competing arguments?
4.
If the audience knows of counterclaims, and they can be refuted, raise them in your speech
and refute them.
What are some of the fallacies that can weaken an argument?
Knowing the varieties of argument will help you avoid several fallacies that will weaken any
speech in which they
are
identified. A logical fallacy is a false or an erroneous statement, or an
invalid or deceptive line
of reasoning. When you beg the question,
your argument is stated in
II. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Do you react positively or negatively when you hear the word “argument”? Why?
This is a good opportunity to discuss how the connotations of words (such as “argument”) affect
Do you enjoy listening to persuasive speeches? Why or why not?
This conversation can become very interesting because some students will enjoy persuasive
Which type of claim do you think
is easiest to defend? Why?
It may be argued that claims of fact would be easiest to defend, as long as there are records or
documentation to support whether something is or is not true. For example, to argue that George