Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Evaluating and Understanding Arguments

CH 15- Part 1

Tiffany Davis

on 8 March 2017

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Evaluating and Understanding Arguments

Using Claims Effectively
Supporting Claims with Evidence
Using Reasoning Effectively
Avoiding Fallacies
Foundations of Persuasion
Organizational pattern
for persuasive speech
Topic: California Drought
Speaker’s Action

Relate topic to audience to gain attention.

Establish the problem/current harm.

Describe the solution to the problem.

Show benefits of proposed solution and/or costs of not implementing it.

Explain how audience can implement
proposed solution.





Monroe's Motivated Sequence
Audience’s Response

I will listen because this is relevant to me.

There’s a problem that needs my attention.

I can visualize the benefits of this solution and/or
the costs of not implementing it.
I can visualize the benefits of this solution of not
implementing it.

I will do this.
Premise 1: Kids who attend private school do better academically.
Premise 2: Kids who attend private school are more social.
Premise 3: Kids who attend private school are more likely to get higher paying careers.
Conclusion: All kids should attend private school because it will lead to a more successful life.
Two types of claims:
Premise: A claim that provides reasons to support a conclusion.
Conclusion: The primary claim the speaker makes.
Guidelines for using Evidence in an Argument:

*Keep your evidence relevant to your topic
*Draw your evidence from highly credible sources
*Select evidence from diverse sources
*Incorporate evidence addressing all types of appeals
& supporting materials
Problem-Solution-Call to Action:

Problem: ???

Solution: ???

Call to Action: ???
Labeling Your Outline (p. 24)

Include one "need" by
marking it in
a bracket.
ex: [Esteem]
Contemporary American Values
Comfortable life
Exciting life
Sense of accomplishment
World at peace
World of beauty
Family Security
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
Social recognition
True friendship
Include one "value" by
marking it in
a bracket.
ex: [Self-respect]
Claim + Evidence + Warrant/Reasoning= Argument
A claim must provide evidence (supporting materials) in order to be considered an argument. The more evidence provided (credible evidence), the more persuasive the argument.
"Reasoning indicates to the audience
WHY the evidence presented should be accepted
as support for the claim" (Coopman & Lull, 2012, p. 313).
Types of Reasoning
Inductive vs. Deductive
Causal- Inductive
One action/event
caused another...
The distracted driver caused
an accident.
Analogical- Inductive
Fallacies stemming from the
a speaker makes refers to
errors in basic assumptions or assertions
false dilemma
occurs when a speaker tries to reduce the choices an audience can make even though other alternatives exist.

Begging the question
is another fallacy where the speaker implies the truth of the conclusion in the premise or simply asserts that the validity of the conclusion is self-evident.

3. A
slippery slope fallacy
occurs when the speaker says that one event will necessarily lead to another without showing any logical connection between the two.

4. An
ad ignorantiam fallacy
suggests that because a claim has not been shown false, it must be true.
Fallacies in evidence
occur when the evidence used to
support a claim is
irrelevant, inaccurate, or insufficient
red herring
is created when the speaker presents evidence that has nothing to do with the claim.

Comparative evidence fallacy
occurs when a speaker uses statistics or compares numbers in ways that mislead the audience and misrepresent the evidence included to support the argument.

Ad populum fallacy
plays on popular attitudes without offering any supporting materials.

4.Speakers using the
appeal to tradition fallacy
argue that the status quo or current state of things is better than any new idea or approach.
Fallacies in
in how the speaker links the
evidence and the claims
division fallacy
is an error in deductive reasoning in which the speaker assumes that what is true of the whole is also true of the parts making up the whole.

hasty generalization fallacy
occurs when the speaker makes a claim after offering only one or two examples, or the examples offered do not represent the larger group.

3. A
post hoc fallacy/questionable cause
involves concluding that a casual relationship exists simply because one event follows another in time.

4. A
weak analogy fallacy
results when two things have important dissimilarities that make the comparison inaccurate and the analogy faulty.
Fallacies in
occur when a
make an error
critiquing a speaker’s arguments
1. An
ad hominem fallacy
occurs when a claim is rejected based on the speaker’s character rather than the evidence.

2. A
guilt by association fallacy
suggests something is wrong with the speaker’s character.

3. A
straw man fallacy
involves misrepresenting a speaker’s argument so that little of the original claim remains.

4. A
loaded word fallacy
uses emotionally laden words to distract from the speaker’s argument and evaluate claims based on a misleading emotional response rather than the evidence presented.
Results in an erroneous argument
False/illogical argument
A fallacy will fall within one of four main categories:

Fallacies in Claims
Fallacies in Evidence
Fallacies in Reasoning
Fallacies in Responding
In order to persuade you MUST build an argument.

Claims+Evidence+Reasoning= Argument

Fallacies diminish credibility; Avoid Fallacies
**Remember, mark your outline with (1) need, (1) value, (2) dimension of credibility, (1) instance of valid reasoning, and use (4) different source citations.
Labeling your outline:

How to label an instance of valid reasoning on your outline (p. 22 & 25):
Please identify an area where you have used a specific type of reasoning

(deductive--mathematics, inductive--generalization, causal, analogical. You will identify this in a bracket. Inductive/deductive can be marked at the end of a sentence/paragraph. Ex: [inductive]

How to label two dimensions of credibility in your outline:
Please identify two areas where you have demonstrated an appeal to credibility (sociability, competence, trustworthiness, dynamism). You will identify these in brackets in two places.
Ex: [competence]
General to specific
Specific to general
1. Sociability: Likeability (Ex: indicating a place of vulnerability)
2. Dynamism: A place where something dynamic occurs (Ex: narrative/story)

Example: After I started dancing I lost weight,
became more confident, and decreased
my stress. All dancers experience the same
emotional and physical benefits.

Problem-Solution-Call to Action: 3 main points

: Establish the problem as you see it

: This will establish the societal solution to your problem (think big!).

Call to Action
: Prescribe a call to action(s) to help your peers envision what they can do to be a part of the solution.

"Life is like a box of chocolates."
"I'm a fish out of water."
You will not be using a topical,
chronological, etc. pattern
Whether you are trying to change a policy or a personal value, you need to establish a problem in order to persuade your audience they need to CHANGE their attitude and/or behavior.

You are addressing this problem with a SOLUTION.
The solution is either to change your audience's value OR modify/create a policy (your thesis should indicate if your speech is a value or policy).
The solution needs to tell us what needs to be done to lessen as many harms from the problem as possible...BUT it also needs to ask us, personally, to participate in an action to support the cause.

*Exchange your worksheet and discuss with a partner.
When a conclusion is ALWAYS certain
you are using deductive reasoning.
When a conclusion is likely,
but not certain, you are using
inductive reasoning.
generalizations, causal, analogical

Example: Everyone who drives 80 MPH is breaking
the law. John is driving 80 MPH.
Therefore, John is breaking the law.
Relationships are like...
Being a college student is like...
3. Competence: Demonstrate that you are "competent"/knowledgeable (Ex: using facts/statistics)
4. Trustworthiness: Appeal to trust and honesty (Ex: using a personal testimony).

Fair: Is the argument fair?

Evidence: Is the claim supported with sufficient evidence?

Logic: Is the argument logical? Does the reasoning make sense?

Tone: Is the author’s tone biased?

 Fallacy: a mistaken notion.

 Relevant: shows connection.

 Sufficient: enough.

 Fact: can be proven.

 Claim: author’s opinion or position.

 Reasons: evidence given to support a claim.

 Counterargument: response to a differing opinion.

 Warrant: the connection between the evidence presented and claim made.

Terms to know:
A good argument will have.......
.1 Claim
2. Grounds
3. Warrant
A good argument will provide.....
Credibility of the source
Logical evidence
A clear motive
Full transcript