83
6
Case Building—
Presentation Planning
CHAPTER
KEY TERMS
case, p. 83
ultimate purpose, p. 84
proposition, p. 84
presumption, p. 86
status quo, p. 86
burden of proof, p. 87
burden of rejoinder, p. 87
prima facie case, p. 88
stock issues, p. 88
counterargument, p. 88
incrementalism, p. 88
commonplace, p. 90
facts, p. 90
probabilities, p. 90
brief, p. 98
problem–solution, p. 98
In Chapter 4 , we presented arguments in the form of relatively simple claims with
limited supporting materials, but that is not how argumentation works. When people
make arguments that they want others to take seriously, they develop more elaborated
combinations of claims and support put together in a way that is meant to be persuasive.
We call this a case in terminology borrowed from legal spheres, but it is more commonly
called a presentation, an essay, memorandum, paper, editorial, thesis, article, blog, as well
as other terms associated with certain spheres. It makes no difference whether the case is
PRELIMINARY STEPS IN CASE BUILDING
When you take on an assignment of preparing an argumentative case, the temptation is to
start thinking of arguments—doing some research to find supporting materials and think-
ing up claims. That is a mistake. Before you start coming up with arguments, there is a
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 83 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 83 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
84 PART 1 Principles
good deal of preliminary work to be done, and failure to do this preliminary work usually
leads to poor arguments.
Identify the Ultimate Purpose
First, be sure you understand what you are trying to accomplish with your case: the ulti-
mate purpose. This is more than simply the desire that appropriate decision makers will
grant adherence to your arguments. The question is this: what is the ultimate objective of
your argumentation, or what would a successful outcome “look like?” If you are not sure
what you are trying to accomplish, the chances are you will not accomplish it.
More than 40 years ago, many world leaders argued for a “war on drugs.” The argu-
ments quickly focused on how governments could catch and incarcerate people associated
with certain drugs, whether they were major producers, transporters, sellers, or users.
Great amounts of money and resources were assigned to law enforcement and the mili-
Former U.S. President and 2002 Nobel Prize winner Jimmy Carter argued on June
17, 2011 that failure to concentrate on the ultimate purpose of reducing the harm done
by drugs had led to failure. Using data from the Global Commission on Drug Policy ,
Carter notes that, “global consumption of opiates increased 34.5 percent, cocaine 27
percent, and cannabis 8.5 percent from 1998 to 2008” (Jimmy Carter A31). Although
tons of drugs have been seized, many drug lords killed or captured, and vast numbers of
individuals have been imprisoned, the ultimate objective of reducing the harmful effects
of drug use has not been fulfilled. Carter argues that the world should start over with a
clear understanding of the ultimate purpose: help people who are suffering from the abuse
of drugs. This will lead to claims that are more responsive to the ultimate purpose than
the concept of “war on drugs.” What would a solution “look like?” It would be a world
where there are fewer abusers of drugs combined with the reduction of all the evils associ-
ated with the production, distribution, and sale of drugs.
State the Proposition
In Chapter 1 , we characterized a proposition as a claim that expresses the judgment that
decision makers are asked to accept or reject. More specifically, the proposition repre-
sents the recommendation you want to advance in response to the ultimate purpose. The
proposition makes no sense if, when agreed to, it does not make a direct contribution
toward the ultimate purpose. It may take many steps resulting from granting adherence to
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 84 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 84 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 6 Case Building—Presentation Planning 85
a number of propositions, to reach the ultimate purpose, but each proposition must move
the process along.
I. To negotiate effectively for a new car, you must know what the dealer paid for the car.
A. The “sticker” price represents what the dealer wants you to pay.
B. The “invoice” price is a guide to what the dealer paid.
C. The New Car Price Service will provide you with the following:
1. Invoice and sticker price for the car.
3. Current rebates, unadvertised dealer incentives, and holdbacks.
II. To negotiate effectively for a new car, you need to understand how cars are sold.
A. Salespersons want to bargain down from the sticker price, but you should bargain
up from the invoice price.
B. Salespersons want to sell extras that increase the price.
C. New Car Price Service will provide solid advice on how to negotiate your best deal.
1. With invoice and sticker price comparisons, you have your negotiating room.
3. New car buyers who use New Car Price Service save an average of US$2,000
4. The cost of the service is US$14.
The proposition claimed that you can achieve your ultimate purpose of buying the
best car for the best price without the process being an ordeal, by subscribing to their
service. Do you agree that there is a direct relationship between the proposition and the
ultimate purpose? Of course, other factors will come into play in your purchase, but is
this proposition well chosen?
Assess Presumptions and Burden of Proof
In Chapter 2 , we introduced you to presumptions which, alongside shared interpretative
strategies, facts, probabilities, and commonplaces, are starting points of argument. Now,
we extend the concept of presumption to include decision makers’ state of mind regarding
1 This ad (case) appears regularly in Consumer Reports . We have modified the ad to suit our purposes, but it is
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 85 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 85 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
86 PART 1 Principles
your proposition and introduce the concept of burden of proof to describe the challenge
to overcoming presumption.
Presumption. In any decision making situation, there is always the question of what will
happen if no new decision is made, and there is the question of what to do if someone pro-
poses an alternative decision, and after full discussion, the arguments for one point of view
are about as good as those for other points of view. Then, what decision should be made?
The answer to both questions is found in the concept of presumption . In 1828, Richard
Whately’s metaphor of occupation of ground has led many to give a presumption to
prevailing regimes. And this, in turn, has been criticized as giving strength to a conserva-
tive theory of hegemony or state power in contrast with those who argue against the le-
gitimacy of some aspects of government or prevailing powers (Whedbee 172–173). Think
of the “Arab Spring” of 2011, when people in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Jordan,
Libya, Yemen, Morocco, and elsewhere charged their leaders with exercising illegitimate
dictatorial powers. In some cases, the leaders held on to their positions through force or
by spending billions to buy loyalty, but was there a true presumption in favor of the status
quo? Obviously, there was not. A closer reading of Whately shows that his concept of
presumption was not static, but dynamic, and it can be said that, “In any debate, there are
multiple presumptions and counter-presumptions affecting audience perceptions; these
presumptions and counter-presumptions shift from side to side and argument to argu-
ment as the debate progresses” (Whedbee 177).
Consider the question of marriage. For most of recorded history, marriage has in-
volved a man and a woman (in some religious/cultural locations, it has involved more
than one person of one sex with a single person of the other sex). Thus, the presumption
in any discussion favored this concept of marriage: joining men and women. The idea of
marriage between two people of the same sex has not been widely considered until re-
cently, and it has always had the burden of proof.
Now, however, marriage between same sex partners has been made legal in a number
of the states in the United States and in some other nations, while constitutional amend-
ments have passed in other states declaring marriage is between one man and one woman.
In still other states, law tends to favor the traditional concept of marriage. Who has the
benefit of presumption and who has the burden of proof? Clearly, presumption must be
decided on the basis of individual nations, states, locations, or discussions. If the question
comes before the Congress or the Supreme Court of the United States, the first presump-
tion to be considered is that marriage has traditionally been within the domain of the
individual states.
Before advancing any claim, you should engage in a dialectical process as we describe
in Chapter 1 . Interact with those involved in the decision making, no matter what their
preliminary point of view is. Ask questions about their preferences, group identities, pri-
mary sources of information, and what they hold as preferred facts, values, and policies.
See, whether through the dialectical interaction, you can negotiate some agreement on
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 86 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 86 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
FIGURE 6.1
Assessing Presumptions
1. To what groups do decision makers belong?
2. To what sources of information do decision makers accord deference?
3. What is the popular and unpopular opinion on the subject?
4. What information might hold the advantage of novelty?
In some situations, presumptions are agreed to for the sake of argument. In law or
legal-like decision making, presumptions may be selected not because they represent the
state of mind of the decision makers but because it will further a sphere value. For ex-
ample, in criminal law, the accused is presumed to be innocent so that the state has the
burden of making a charge and providing arguments. This is done for various reasons:
Burden of Proof. Burden of proof identifies the responsibility to initiate an argument
and set out a case sufficient in argumentative strength and breadth to bring the decision
makers to doubt their presumptions and then see themselves, at least potentially, able
to adhere to your proposition. Those who are challenging a presumed position typically
have the burden of proof, or more generally, those who advance an assertion have the
burden to prove it (Those who assert must prove).
FIGURE 6.2
Burden of Proof
Professor: “NASA put men on the Moon.”
Student: “It never happened. It was faked by the government.”
Professor: “Can you prove that?”
Student: “Can you prove I’m wrong?”
From a communicative perspective, fulfilling a burden of proof means moving de-
cision makers to the point that if no further argument were to occur, they will grant
adherence to your proposition. In that way, you will have shifted the initiative to your
opponents, who now have the burden of rejoinder . If they do not reply to your case, their
position will erode.
88 PART 1 Principles
Prima Facie Case. What we have just described, a case that provides sufficient argument
to justify adherence to its proposition if no counterargument occurs, is called a prima
facie case . This is a Latin term still used in law that says, in essence, the case is sufficient
on its face or at first examination to justify adherence. As in presumption, the meaning
FIGURE 6.3
Stock Issues on Questions of Policy
1. Is there something in our present policy that should be changed, that is causing
harm or failing to achieve the ultimate purpose? Is there, then, a need for a
change in policy?
2. Is this need or harm inherent in the present policy such that only a significant
change will remedy it?
3. Is there a practical alternative policy that would satisfy this need?
4. Would the alternative policy be desirable, would it work with more advantages
than disadvantages?
The stock issues reflect the acceptance of the fullest possible burden of proof in policy
analysis: to condemn the present policy in its entirety and argue for a complete replace-
ment policy. This has been called complete or scientific policy analysis (Lindblom 517). The
problem with stock issues, says Charles E. Lindblom, Sterling Professor of Economics and
Political Science at Yale University, is that decisions rarely follow that pattern. There are, he
says, too many values at stake, too many alternatives possible with too many consequences
to be traced into the future and, with such complexity, it is rarely possible to win the adher-
ence of a sufficiently large range of decision makers to put the new policy into effect (518).
For more than the past half century, an alternative to stock issues has been discussed:
incrementalism . Sometimes known as “muddling through,” incrementalism is a politi-
cal change by small steps, “Analysis limited to consideration of alternative policies all of
which are only incrementally different from the status quo” (Lindblom 517). Under the
theory of incrementalism, the advocate does not accept the burden of condemning the
present policy as whole—does not claim that the harms are inherent. Instead, the advo-
cate argues that the status quo is not achieving the ultimate purpose of the policy as well
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 88 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 88 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 6 Case Building—Presentation Planning 89
as it could, and there is an available revision of the status quo that would do the job better
without undue disadvantages. From a rhetorical perspective, incremental steps are more
Think back to the example of the Arab Spring, when people demanded the ouster of
their leaders and government to be replaced by an entirely new constitution (complete
policy analysis). In Morocco, by contrast, King Mohammed VI began moving slowly to
achieve a sustainable change in his country (incrementalism), and the people never called
for the fall of the regime (Audi). A similar incremental approach was pursued in Jordan
by its king.
A prima facie case does nothing more than shift the burden of carrying the argument
forward from you to those who previously were protected by presumption. They now
have the burden of rejoinder: They must supply a counterargument to stay in contention.
You should not expect that just because you have made a prima facie case you will win
The preliminary steps in case building, then, include the following: identify the ulti-
mate purpose, state the proposition, assess the presumptions and burden of proof, and de-
cide what will be needed for a prima facie case. Now you can proceed to prepare the case.
PREPARING THE PRESENTATION/CASE
There are two significant responsibilities in preparing a persuasive case: (1) clear, well-
supported, and defensible arguments; and (2) a convincing vision of the rightness of your
cause. Neither is sufficient alone. Since decisions are almost never made after one pres-
entation, in one location, by a single set of decision makers, your presentation should be
centered on the immediate context and adjusted for each new one.
Identify the Decision Contexts
Within a single decision-making sphere, there are frequently many contexts in which ar-
gumentation functions. Dennis Jaehne has found many different and complex contexts
for argumentation just within the bureaucratic system of the U.S. Forest Service. An en-
vironmental group that wants, for example, to stop helicopter shooting of coyotes must
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 89 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 89 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
90 PART 1 Principles
who must translate law into administrative policies. Each context is likely to bring up dif-
ferent arguments and issues, and all should be accounted for in your preparation.
Locate Starting Points
Consider the starting points for argumentation that we explained in Chapter 2 : language
interpretation strategies, facts, presumptions, probabilities, and commonplaces. You need
to apply those concepts to your presentation. Remember, these concepts identify points of
commonality that are shared and not controversial. The more you can rest your case on
what is already shared by the decision makers, the stronger your case will be.
You should be familiar with language usage within the context being addressed to make
yourself as clear as possible and to avoid embarrassing mistakes. A U.S. politician claimed
the future of Afghanistan must be shaped by the “Afghanis.” A reporter observed that an
“Afghani” is the unit of currency in Afghanistan, and the people are known as “Afghans.”
The politician was made to appear ignorant. U.S. President John F. Kennedy famously pro-
claimed to the people of an endangered city, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” Some commentators
noted that in that sentence, Kennedy had actually said, “I am a jelly-filled pastry.” Others
said he really got it right, but it did show he was not a fluent speaker of German. The more
your language choices match those common to your decision makers, the better you will
Presumptions and probabilities embrace the full range of worldviews held by the
decision makers: values, customs, sense of how events occur and are to be evaluated,
optimism or pessimism about the future, and more. The shared presumptions and prob-
abilities help to locate the values and sources of credibility that you can use in support of
your claims, as we discuss in Chapters 8 and 9 .
State Possible Issues
An issue is a question that identifies a significant point of difference among those engaged
in the argumentation. We describe characteristics of issues in Chapter 1 , and discuss how
they are developed in Chapter 5 . Look to the stock issues as guides to the possible issues
in your case. The generic question, “Is there a need to change the present policy?” will
lead you, perhaps, to the issue: “Is the present cost of higher education weakening the fu-
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 90 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 90 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 6 Case Building—Presentation Planning 91
question: “Is the cost of higher education too high?” We call them possible issues because
in different contexts points of difference may change. You need to be prepared to argue
whatever point of difference emerges in the debate.
Outline Your Arguments
A case, presentation, or whatever it is called is first set up in outline form. If it is ulti-
mately to be written in full, the outline will constitute the guide for the writing. If it is to
be presented orally, the outline will constitute the speaking notes. The hard work is done
SAMPLE ARGUMENT OUTLINE
ULTIMATE PURPOSE : The United States must produce a college-trained workforce sufficient
to satisfy the national goals of meeting the economy’s need for growth and reversing the rise
of income inequality.
PROPOSITION : Resolved that a 3-year undergraduate degree program should be the standard
in U.S. colleges and universities.
POSSIBLE ISSUES :
Is the United States under producing college-trained workers?
Is the high cost of college causing low graduation numbers?
Does the 4-year degree program reduce graduation numbers?
Will under production of college-trained workers increase an earnings gap?
Will under production of college-trained workers damage U.S. economic growth?
Would a 3-year undergraduate degree standard significantly increase college-trained workers?
Would a 3-year undergraduate degree standard be desirable?
STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS (This is only a sample of how arguments might be arranged.)
A. The United States is losing ground in postsecondary education to its competitors,
1. Only 42% of U.S. 25-34-year olds have college degrees, far below the 55% in
2. To compete, the United States must increase the production of college-trained
workers, according to Adam Cota, Kartik Jayaram, and Martha C.A. Laboissière,
1. The law of supply and demand means that if the demand exceeds supply, then the
value of the supply (college-trained workers) will rise.
2. Employers are now willing to pay Bachelor’s degree holders 74% more than those
with only a high school diploma, according to Carnevale and Rose. (Continued)
92 PART 1 Principles
II. Production of college-trained workers is diminished by the high cost of college,
A. “College prices are rising more rapidly than the prices of other goods and services. . .
[a process] that has persisted over the entire 30-year period,” according to Trends in
B. Students have trouble paying the costs of college. The amount of money owed in
student loans exceeds the nation’s credit card debt and in 2010–2011 average student
debt was US$27,204, according to a National Public Radio broadcast, “College
Student Debt Grows. Is It Worth It?” June 29, 2011.
III. Three-year college degree programs will facilitate the production of college-trained
workers,
A. Compressing a college degree into 36 months will lower the cost.
1. Hartwick College in Oneonta, NY says its 3-year bachelor’s degree will reduce costs
2009. “Students will take 40 rather than 30 credits a year, keeping their summers
free for study abroad, internships, or employment.”
B. Three-year degrees are the next logical step in higher education,
1. According to Daniel de Vise, writing in The Washington Post , students are increasingly
entering college having earned college credits from Advanced Placement or
2. Three-year programs may not be for everybody, but they will help those who might
C. Three-year degrees will increase the number of college-trained workers,
2. Students will start earning full salaries earlier.
3. The increased supply of college-trained workers will reduce the imbalance of supply
and demand, narrowing the wage gap.
POSSIBLE REBUTTALS
I. Three-year degree programs have proved unpopular with students.
A. Most such programs have flopped,
B. Students value their college years and are reluctant to lose them.
II. Compressed study is appropriate only to a limited number of students.
A. Many programs require a high grade average from high school for entry.
B. Completing a high number of credit hours in a short time is difficult for most students.
C. Three-year programs do not allow for change of majors that many students want to
experiment with.
D. Athletics, clubs, social life, employment, and other activities are sacrificed.
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 92 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 92 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 6 Case Building—Presentation Planning 93
DEVELOPING A CONVINCING VISION
An outline provides you with a set of fully developed arguments. But as Karl Llewellyn
observed about lawyers arguing before appellate courts, something more than fully devel-
oped arguments is required. He said that although courts accept a duty to the law, they
Your whole case must make sense, must appeal as being obvious sense, inescapable sense, sense
in simple terms of life and justice. If that is done, a technically sound case on the law then gets
rid of all further difficulty: it shows the court that its duty to the Law not only does not conflict
with its duty to Justice but urges along the exact same line (182).
Reread his statement. Notice that it is the vision that moves the decision maker in
your direction, whereas the arguments merely dispel doubts that the vision is correct and
provide a rationale for its promulgation.
What is sensible, just, decent, or right is a function of the worldview and values of
the decision makers. To make a case is to engage and shape them on behalf of your cause.
As Richard Rorty says, truth, goodness, and beauty are not eternal objects that we try to
locate and reveal as much as artifacts whose fundamental design we often have to alter
(“Philosophy” 143). Rorty believes that we satisfy our burden of proof by offering “spar-
kling new ideas, or utopian visions of glorious new institutions. The result of genuinely
new thought is not so much to refute or subvert our previous beliefs as to help us forget
them by giving us a substitute for them” (“Is Derrida” 208–209).
Learn the Decision Makers’ Vision
The role of narratives, scripts, and scenarios is critical in evaluating argument. Many
would argue that the most potent form of argument is narrative: telling a story that allows
the decision makers to come to their own understanding that happens to coincide with
yours. To do that, you need to listen to those who will be making the decision to learn
their narrative world.
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 93 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 93 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
94 PART 1 Principles
Sometimes, telling your story means helping decision makers abandon their world-
view. People often hold tenaciously to a policy because of tradition, “We’ve always done
it that way,” without re-thinking why we have always done so. Daniel de Vise, writing
in The Washington Post , says that the 4-year college calendar was originally set up by
Tell the Story of Your Vision
The Oldest Living Confederate Widow tells us that, “Stories only happen to the people
who can tell them” (Gurganus 256). Reality rests on the stories we take as accurate char-
acterizations of the way things truly are. Visualization serves to intensify the feelings of
Consider an Example
A member of the U.S. House of Representatives submitted a bill (proposition) asking
that the Custer Battlefield National Monument in Montana should be renamed as the
Little Bighorn National Battlefield Park and that a Native American memorial be erected.
He had prepared his case carefully, but he also had to address a well-established vision
of what happened between people coming to live in North America from the sixteenth
century on and those who were already living there. Unless he could inspire members of
Congress with his new vision, his proposition stood little chance of passing.
Randall Lake observes that contemporary civilizations make themselves legitimate
by grounding their origins in historical processes, and that is the case in the United States
today. Lake says there is a powerful and well-developed Euramerican narrative in place
that renders Native Americans relics to the past and thus absent from the present and ir-
relevant to the future. In brief, the Euramerican narrative follows a “time’s arrow” meta-
phor, suggesting events moving in a line from past to present to future. The Europeans ar-
rived in North America, encountered a savage that had to be “civilized” and “saved,” and
Those who would sustain a case for a Native American memorial must take the deci-
sion makers on a time-traveling expedition to establish an alternate vision to the time’s
arrow notion. They offer a “time’s cycle” vision instead. Tribal life, says Lake, moved not
along a linear chronology but in a cyclical pattern associated with the seasons and cardi-
nal directions: the circle, not the line, is important. Thus, there is no beginning or end, but
a constant cycling. We approached a young boy at the Taos Pueblo one time and asked,
“How old are you?” He replied, “I do not measure my life with numbers.”
In the Native American vision, the cycle now comes around to memorializing all those
who fought at the Little Bighorn. The proposition to change the name of the memorial
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 94 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 94 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 6 Case Building—Presentation Planning 95
was proposed by then–U.S. Representative Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado (he
shortly became a U.S. senator), whose great-grandfather fought against General George
Armstrong Custer and the Seventh Cavalry at the Little Bighorn River. In his vision,
Native Americans did not vanish and become irrelevant; they have been here all along and
were just made invisible by the Euramerican story.
Ben Nighthorse Campbell, by his very presence in the U.S. House of Representatives,
The Congress chose Campbell’s vision: a Little Bighorn National Battlefield
Monument (Public Law 102–201), with monuments to both sides, such as we have at
sites of Civil War battles. The once-invisible army that attacked Custer appears now as
the victor in the battle.
COMMUNICATION TO SPECIFIC DECISION MAKERS
Preparing an outline of argument and a vision of the case are part of the overall planning
and strategy in case preparation. They represent the vital research phase. However, each
time a specific decision-making context is encountered, a specific adaptation of the case
What Are the Communication Constraints?
Having done all the research on your case, there is a powerful temptation to present eve-
rything you have at every opportunity. Lawyers once wrote such long briefs that the ap-
pellate courts set page limits. In almost every situation, time limits apply, even if only by
implication. The important point to remember is this: Say what you need to say to make
Use different media effectively. Because some people feel more comfortable writing
their case than presenting it orally, they choose to bypass oral presentations. The reverse
is also true. It is a mistake to presume that writing or speaking alone is as effective as
a combination of the two plus any other appropriate nonverbal means such as charts,
graphs, films, models, slides, or PowerPoint. Each medium of communication can serve a
role in making a case and should be considered.
What Counterargument Will Occur?
In formal debates such as at trials or during legislative deliberations, speakers are followed
by someone taking another point of view and likely to refute what has been said before.
In other situations, such direct advocacy may be avoided. There are times when a speaker
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 95 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 95 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
96 PART 1 Principles
has been invited to present a case, only to learn later that others have also been invited
to present alternative cases. On some television magazine programs, such as 60Minutes ,
people are interviewed individually, and later their remarks are edited together to make
the interview appear to have been a debate.
What Argumentative Format Will Be Used?
Veteran advocates do not walk into a decision-making situation without plenty of ad-
vance notice of the order of the speakers, how long they will speak, how frequently they
will speak, what the agenda will be, how the physical surroundings will be set up, what
materials will be appropriate, who will attend, and so forth. Read the history of debates
among candidates for major political office to see how much attention they pay to such
details.
Political candidates carefully work to keep “debates” more on the order of press
conferences or public forums in which a panel of reporters or members of the audience
alternate in asking questions. They toss coins to see who speaks first and last because
they know these are important speaking positions. They like to turn a reporter’s question
In business presentations, it is often the case that day-long sessions will be scheduled
with one presenter after another coming to the front. It is also common in business pres-
entations to present many charts, PowerPoint images, or DVDs in a darkened room. This
means that unless you are one of the first presenters, your audience is likely to be lulled
into a soporific stupor by the time your turn comes. If you follow the pattern of all the
others, you will be unlikely to make much of an impression.
What Are the Rules of the Sphere?
Among the mass of argument and support for your proposition, some will be quite in-
admissible in certain spheres. Admissibility is most clearly defined in law, where some
arguments, witnesses, documents, or comments simply will not be heard. However, many
scholars become disturbed when their scientific research is presented in court in abbrevi-
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 96 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 96 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 6 Case Building—Presentation Planning 97
What counts as the starting point for argument and what counts as proper support
will vary from sphere to sphere. In selecting your specific case for presentation, you must
know what rules apply. A corporation may make a decision based on solid arguments
within its context that would never win the adherence of government regulators. One
How Will the Decision Be Made?
Rarely does a single case presentation lead to an immediate decision. Typically, some time
passes between argumentation and decision making. The questions for case selection are
how much time will pass, how many other deliberations will take place, how much of the
ultimate decision will be made outside your presence?
It is here that vision, language, and focused argument come together to make power-
fully memorable arguments. Few remember the legal intricacies of Justice Holmes’s argu-
ment in Schenck v. United States , but many firmly “know” the prohibition against “falsely
shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” He boiled his case down to a memorable
statement that was combined with another: This speech act would present a “clear and
present danger,” which government has a right to punish, and thereby made a case for
What Sequence of Claims Is Most Appropriate?
Remember, the purpose of a case is to generate adherence to your proposition by the im-
mediately appropriate decision makers. That means the series of claims included in the
case must combine to move the decision makers from where they are to where you want
them to be. The same proposition can be argued with different organizational structures
that engage the minds of the decision makers through generalized forms of reasoning. The
choice of organization for a presentation is largely a rhetorical one—what format is most
likely to connect with the decision makers?
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 97 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 97 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
98 PART 1 Principles
that their primary assignment is to “learn to think like a lawyer.” That means knowing
how to write a brief or legal memorandum that presents convincing arguments. Graduate
students are told that their task is to become scholars—to present the products of their
research in a form suitable for publication. That means to make a scholarly case for their
research. In the application chapters 12 – 16 , we illustrate how argumentation is developed
and structured in various technical spheres.
Stock Issues. In the sample outline, we have illustrated how your presentation can be
organized by the stock issues. Following the format for an incremental analysis, we have
omitted the inherency issue. Each stock issue becomes a specific claim:
I. There is a need for a change. I. The United States is failing to create enough
college-trained workers.
II. There is a plan to meet the need. II. A 3-year bachelor’s degree will train enough
workers.
III. The plan is desirable? III. A 3-year bachelor’s degree is desirable.
2. It will put students into the labor force
quickly.
3. It will provide the skilled workers needed
in new industries.
From a rhetorical point of view, a structure with three major claims or contentions is
most desirable since decision makers are more likely to remember your points if you have
managed to place your arguments into that configuration rather than setting out a long string
of individual points. The downside of PowerPoint and similar presentation software is that
Problem–Solution. A way of expanding the stock issues case structure is to use a prob-
lem–solution format. It is widely used in journalistic writing and policy decision making.
One of the most enduring formats for public speaking, called the motivated sequence ,
rests on this pattern. Kathleen German and her colleagues claim that it approximates the
normal processes of human thinking and will move an audience toward agreement with a
speaker’s purposes. They describe the following sequence of claims:
ATTENTION: An opening claim aimed at generating the active involvement of deci-
sion makers—often this is a story about individuals’ experiences.
NEED: A claim that identifies a condition in need of correction.
the condition is corrected through the proposed method—what does success
“look like?”
ACTION: A claim that calls for specific measures to put the proposed action into
being (266–270)
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 98 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 98 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 6 Case Building—Presentation Planning 99
Bill Gleason, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education , makes an argument for
more transparency in the costs of college. We will adapt his case to illustrate the problem–
solution format.
NEED: The actual cost of attending a particular college is difficult if not impossible
to learn. The published figures cannot be trusted, and students need this informa-
tion if they are to make critical decisions about college.
SATISFACTION: There is already movement toward transparency in college costs.
VISUALIZATION: Colleges and universities will no longer be able to engage in
questionable practices in publishing tuition and total price figures. If students
and their parents can rely on published college costs, they will be able to make
their selections more specifically, reduce the number of applications submitted
and paid for, and they will know going in what the financial aid package will
be (Geason).
Comparative Advantages. Sometimes policy analysis turns on a joint acknowledgement
that the present system needs improvement, but there is difference over the best way to do
that. So, the argumentation centers on comparing the advantages of two or more poten-
tial policy changes. The structure looks like this:
I. The United States must increase the production of college-trained workers, as we all
agree.
II. A 3-year bachelor’s degree would not significantly increase the production of college-
trained workers,
III. Increased availability of Online degree programs will significantly increase the pro-
duction of college-trained workers.
A. Online degrees can be offered at lower cost than on campus, as proven by The
Western Governors University.
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 99 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 99 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
100 PART 1 Principles
We have not included in this example the discussion of comparative disadvantages
of the two policy proposals. In the second point, in addition to showing that 3-year pro-
grams are unlikely to produce a significant increase in college-trained workers, you will
Criteria/Definition. A case organization that begins by arguing for a credible set of crite-
ria or a definition of the ultimate purpose can lay the groundwork for presenting and de-
fending policy arguments. Similar to stock issues, the case looks at what is not working in
I. The United States is not preparing enough college-trained workers, as we all agree.
II. What is needed is to fill the so-called, “skills gap,”
A. The definition of the “skills gap” is, “A national problem that has left businesses
without a crucial pipeline of the skilled workers they need in a rapidly changing
economy” according to Erika Niedowski in The Salt Lake Tribune , July 3, 2011.
1
B. Being “college-trained” is not enough: the workers must be trained to meet the
current demand for skilled workers, and that may require only an associate’s de-
gree, says Niedowski.
III. So, any proposed solution must satisfy the following criteria:
A. Whatever the degree, the product must be workers ready to enter the new technol-
ogy-demanding workforce.
B. Career and technical education programs are not enough—they must be increased
in quality and relevance to present demands.
C. Community college associate degrees are not enough—community colleges must
communicate with employers to learn their needs.
D. “No Worker Left Behind” programs that allow “ unemployed or low-wage work-
ers to get up to US$10,000 in free tuition,” or “lifelong learning accounts, which,
like a 401(k) help workers save for education, training, or apprenticeships,” must
be made widely available (Niedowski).
CONCLUSION
Presentation or case building rests on thorough research and preparation. Before you are
ready to support any proposition, you should identify the ultimate purpose or what it is
you are trying to accomplish with your arguments. You should phrase your proposition
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 100 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 100 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 6 Case Building—Presentation Planning 101
In preparing the presentation, you need to identify decision contexts and what start-
ing points there are on which to support your claims. By engaging in dialectic, you can
discover where the possible major points of disagreement will be—the issues. Then, you
can outline your arguments.
Powerful arguments are only half of the job in preparing a case or presentation. The
other half is developing a convincing vision through which you can tell the story of your
ultimate purpose. This will need to be adapted to specific decision makers along with
choosing the issues to be addressed. You need to know in advance all the constraints and
EXERCISES/PROJECTS
2. Along with a team of other students, select a proposition on which you will engage in a debate.
Start with dialectic on the subject area so that you can discover where team members’ beliefs,
3. Listen to the debates conducted by other students, and prepare a detailed critique. Be prepared
to explain where the debate and various arguments worked well and where the debaters could
have done a better job.
M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 101 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396M06_RIEK0596_08_SE_C06.indd Page 101 17/01/12 1:17 PM user-f396 F-396F-396