Chapter 15 Arguing Persuasively
Arguing Persuasively
Persuasion and Demagoguery in a Free Society
Distinguish between persuasion and demagoguery
Persuasion is a legitimate, essential tool of democratic deliberation, whereas demagoguery subverts reasoned deliberation with charismatic and emotional appeals
Constructing a Reasonable Argument
Define argument and discuss what it means to make a complete and “reasonable” argument
A good argument is not one that confirms our existing beliefs or “works” to persuade an audience, but one that is complete and reasonable and meets certain tests of reasoning and evidence
Claims are debatable assertions about fac, value, or policy that we put forward in a persuasive speech
Evidence provides support for our claims and should meet certain tests of quantitative and qualitative sufficienct
Warrants are general assumptions, principles, or rules that connect our evidence to our claims
The burden of proof is the level of proof necessary to warrant serious consideration of an argument
The Forms of Reasoning
Identify the different types of reasoning and discuss what makes each different type “reasonable”
The process of drawing inferences from known facts is called reasoning
The four common types of reasoning are inductive, deductive, causal, and analogical
Inductive reasoning draws a general conclusion from a set of specific examples
Deductive reasoning draws conclusions about specific cases from a generally accepted premise or principle
Causal reasoning makes inferences from cause to effect or effect to cause
Analogical reasoning infers that what is true of some known case is or will be true of a similar case
Fallacies of Reasoning and Evidence
Define and describe some common fallacies of reasoning and evidence
Fallacies are errors or flaws of reasoning and evidence
The four major categories of fallacies are fallacies of relevance, fallacies of reasoning, fallacies of inadequate evidence, and fallacies of personal attack:
Fallacies of relevance include the appeal to ignorance, the appeal to popular beliefs, the disconnected conclusion (or non sequitur), the appeal to tradition, the red herring, and the straw man
Fallacies of faulty reasoning include the false dilemma, begging the question, the faulty analogy, and the slippery slope
Fallacies of inadequate evidence include the false cause (post hoc) and the hasty generalization
Fallacies of personal attack include the attack against the person (as hominem) and guilt by association
Key terms
Persuasion - The chief mechanism through which citizens in a democracy select their leaders, determine their civic priorities, resolve controversies and disputes, and choose among various policies
Demagoguery - Deceptive or manipulative speech, often relying upon the charismatic ethos of the demagogue and appealing to “dark” emotions like hatred or fear
Orator-statesman - Woodrow Wilson’s term for the ethical, civic-minded public speaker
Argument - A series of ideas, each one supported by evidence, used to advance a particular position on an issue
Claims - The debatable assertions put forward by a speaker
Qualifiers - In the Toulmin model, the words or phrases that indicate the level of confidence we have in our claims
Reservations - In the Toulmin model, the stated exceptions to our claims or the conditions under which we no longer hold to our claims
Warrants - In the Toulmin model, the general assumptions, rules, or principles that connect evidence to claims
Backing - In the Toulmin model, addition support for a disputed or controversial warrant, or general principle, in an argument
Presumption - In a courtroom debate, the idea that the accused is presumed innocent until proven innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution
Burden of proof - The standard or expectations that define a “reasonable argument” in a particular situation or the proof necessary to warrant serious consideration and further debate over an advocate’s claims
Reasoning - Reaching a conclusion on the basis of supporting evidence
Inductive reasoning - Reasoning form particular instances or examples to a general conclusion
Deductive reasoning - Reasoning from an accepted generalization to a conclusion about a particular case
Enthymeme - A “rhetorical syllogism,” or a form of deductive reasoning in which the speaker draws inferences from a general principle or rule, often unstated, that is already accepted by the audience
Causal reasoning - Reasoning that aims to proves relationships between effects and causes
Analogical reasoning - Inferring that what is true of one case will be true of another, similar case
Fallacies - Flaws in reasoning or evidence that render arguments logically unsound
Appeal to ignorance - The fallacy that occurs when a speaker argues that because something has never been proven wrong, it must be right. Or the opposite: because something has never been proven true, it must be false
Bandwagon appeal - The fallacy that occurs when a speaker urges listeners to accept something simply because so many other accept it
Non sequitur - A fallacy that occurs when a conclusion simply does not follow logically from the arguments and evidence that precede it
Appeal to tradition - A fallacy in which a speaker offers past ways of doing things as the only reason for or against doing something now or in the future
Red herring - A fallacy in which the speaker attempts to throw an audience off track by raising an irrelevant, often highly emotional issue that prevents critical examination of an argument
Straw man fallacy - The fallacy that occurs when a speaker attributes a flimsy, easy-to-refute argument to his opponent, then proceeds to demolish it, in the process misrepresenting the opponent’s real position
False dilemma - The fallacy that occurs when a speaker suggests that we have only two alternatives, when in fact more than two alternatives exist
Begging the question - The fallacy that occurs when a speaker makes a claim that assumes the very thing he or she hopes to prove, thus arguing in a circle
False cause - The fallacy that occurs when a speaker assumes that because one event precedes another, it must have caused it
Hasty generalization - The fallacy that occurs when a speaker generalizes from too few examples
Ad hominem - The fallacy that occurs when a speaker substitutes an attack on a person for a refutation of that person’s arguments
Guilt by association - The fallacy that occurs when an advocate judges an idea, person, or program solely on the basis of its association with other ideas, people, or programs
Faulty analogy - The fallacy of analogical reasoning that occurs when speakers compare things that are not, in fact, similar
Slippery slope - The fallacy that occurs when a speaker claims that some cause will inevitably lead to undesirable effects, ultimately resulting in some worst-case scenario