Oral CommunicationsOral Communications

Analysis and EvaluationAnalysis and Evaluation

California Content StandardsCalifornia Content StandardsAnalysis and Evaluation of Oral and Analysis and Evaluation of Oral and

Media CommunicationsMedia Communications

1.13 Analyze the four basic types of 1.13 Analyze the four basic types of persuasive speech (i.e. propositions of persuasive speech (i.e. propositions of fact, value, problem or policy) and fact, value, problem or policy) and understand the similarities and understand the similarities and differences in their patterns of differences in their patterns of organization and the use of persuasive organization and the use of persuasive language, reasoning and proof.language, reasoning and proof.

Types of Persuasive Types of Persuasive SpeechesSpeeches

Propositions of factPropositions of fact Propositions of valuePropositions of value Propositions of problemPropositions of problem Propositions of policyPropositions of policy

Propositions of FactPropositions of Fact A A fact claimfact claim is a statement about is a statement about

how things were in the past, how how things were in the past, how they are in the present, or how they they are in the present, or how they will be in the future. A fact claim is will be in the future. A fact claim is not a fact; it only claims to be a not a fact; it only claims to be a fact. What makes it arguable is that fact. What makes it arguable is that the speaker has no direct way of the speaker has no direct way of establishing the truth of the claim. establishing the truth of the claim.

Propositions of FactPropositions of Fact

For example, "The Earth is round" is a For example, "The Earth is round" is a proven fact. "In our right-handed world, proven fact. "In our right-handed world, left-handed people are discriminated left-handed people are discriminated against" is a fact claim. A persuasive against" is a fact claim. A persuasive speaker must provide arguments which speaker must provide arguments which build a case in favor of the claim, showing build a case in favor of the claim, showing that the claim is probably true, or at least that the claim is probably true, or at least is more likely true than false. is more likely true than false.

Propositions of ValuePropositions of Value Value claimsValue claims are arguable statements concerning the are arguable statements concerning the

relative merits of something which is measured relative merits of something which is measured subjectively (e.g., "Victoria is a better place to go for subjectively (e.g., "Victoria is a better place to go for summer vacation than Calgary"). What makes a value summer vacation than Calgary"). What makes a value claim arguable is that different people may disagree on claim arguable is that different people may disagree on the criteria used to evaluate something (e.g., weather, the criteria used to evaluate something (e.g., weather, live entertainment, water sports). Differing value claims live entertainment, water sports). Differing value claims may be used to argue the value of a variety of topics may be used to argue the value of a variety of topics (e.g., movies, styles of living, community (e.g., movies, styles of living, community organizations). Defending a value claim involves organizations). Defending a value claim involves offering a set of criteria for consideration, defending offering a set of criteria for consideration, defending the set of criteria as legitimate, and showing how the set of criteria as legitimate, and showing how applying the criteria justifies the claim. applying the criteria justifies the claim.

Propositions of ValuePropositions of Value

Differing value claims may be used to Differing value claims may be used to argue the value of a variety of topics (e.g., argue the value of a variety of topics (e.g., movies, styles of living, community movies, styles of living, community organizations). Defending a value claim organizations). Defending a value claim involves offering a set of criteria for involves offering a set of criteria for consideration, defending the set of criteria consideration, defending the set of criteria as legitimate, and showing how applying as legitimate, and showing how applying the criteria justifies the claim. the criteria justifies the claim.

Propositions of ProblemPropositions of Problem

A proposition is the main point or A proposition is the main point or viewpoint that the speaker/writer sets out viewpoint that the speaker/writer sets out to establish or defend. Presenting a to establish or defend. Presenting a problem claimproblem claim offers one or more viable offers one or more viable solutions. It is not the same as solutions. It is not the same as propositions of fact, value or policy in that propositions of fact, value or policy in that it centers on a problem and follows a it centers on a problem and follows a problem/solution organizational format.problem/solution organizational format.

Proposition of PolicyProposition of Policy

A A policy claimpolicy claim is a statement regarding the is a statement regarding the merits of one course of action as opposed to merits of one course of action as opposed to other courses of action. What makes a policy other courses of action. What makes a policy claim arguable is that, even though people and claim arguable is that, even though people and institutions may not be totally certain about the institutions may not be totally certain about the proper course of action to take, they still must proper course of action to take, they still must act. To argue in defense of a policy claim is to act. To argue in defense of a policy claim is to state that, given the knowledge we have at the state that, given the knowledge we have at the present time, it is best to act in the manner present time, it is best to act in the manner proposed rather than in some alternative way. proposed rather than in some alternative way.

Content StandardsContent Standards

1.6 Use logical, ethical, and emotional 1.6 Use logical, ethical, and emotional appeals that enhance the specific tone appeals that enhance the specific tone and purpose.and purpose.

Appeals in Persuasive Appeals in Persuasive SpeechesSpeeches

Three basic strategies used in persuasion Three basic strategies used in persuasion are appeal to reason, appeal to audience are appeal to reason, appeal to audience emotion, and appeal to audience needs. emotion, and appeal to audience needs. Speakers should remember their ethical Speakers should remember their ethical responsibilities and not use dishonest or responsibilities and not use dishonest or misleading persuasive appeals. This will misleading persuasive appeals. This will also weaken one’s argument.also weaken one’s argument.

Types of AppealTypes of Appeal

ETHOS: kind of person you areETHOS: kind of person you are        -- your education, honesty,         -- your education, honesty, reputation, delivery skillsreputation, delivery skills

LOGOS: appeals to the rational intellectLOGOS: appeals to the rational intellect        -- proving that we need a change        -- proving that we need a change

PATHOS: appeals to our passions and PATHOS: appeals to our passions and will; using emotional proofswill; using emotional proofs        -- appealing to deeply held values        -- appealing to deeply held values

Persuasive Speech FormatsPersuasive Speech FormatsPROPOSITION STATED FIRST 

*STATEMENT-OF-REASONS METHODPROPOSITIONREASONS

 *PROBLEM-SOLUTION METHOD

PROPOSITIONSTATEMENT OF PROBLEMSTATEMENT OF SOLUTION

 *COMPARATIVE-ADVANTAGE METHOD

PROPOSITIONPOINTS OF COMPARISON (BENEFITS BY CHOICE "A" VERSUSCHOICES "B" OR "C")

 PROPOSITION STATED AT END 

*CRITERIA-SATISFACTION METHODPROBLEM STATED, CRITERIA TO SOLVE PROBLEM

PRESENTEDHOW CRITERIA WILL BE METPROPOSITION

 *NEGATIVE METHOD

PROBLEM STATED, OTHER OPTIONS AND WHY NOT WORKPROPOSITION

 *MONROE MOTIVATED SEQUENCE

DRAW ATTENTION TO PROBLEMSHOW NEED FOR ACTIONOUTLINE A GENERAL PLAN TO SATISFY THEHELP THE AUDIENCE VISUALIZE THE BENEFITSSUGGEST A SPECIFIC ACTION THAT PUTS PLAN INTO

PRACTICE (DETAILED PROPOSITION)

Content StandardsContent Standards

1.12 Identify logical fallacies used in oral 1.12 Identify logical fallacies used in oral addresses (e.g. attack ad hominem, false addresses (e.g. attack ad hominem, false causality, red herring, overgeneralization, causality, red herring, overgeneralization, bandwagon effect).bandwagon effect).

Logical Fallacies: Ad HominemLogical Fallacies: Ad Hominem "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the

person." person." An Ad Hominem is when a claim or argument is rejected on An Ad Hominem is when a claim or argument is rejected on

the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author or the the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps.fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making First, an attack against the character of person making

the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). reporting the claim).

Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). presenting).

Ad HominemAd Hominem

This type of "argument" has the following This type of "argument" has the following form:form:

1.1. Person A makes claim X. Person A makes claim X. 2.2. Person B makes an attack on Person B makes an attack on

person A.person A. 3. Therefore A's claim is false. 3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made (or the quality of the argument being made).being made).

False CausalityFalse Causality

False causality: an action purported to False causality: an action purported to cause an effect, which does not, in fact, cause an effect, which does not, in fact, cause the effect. It does not fit into the cause the effect. It does not fit into the following four possibilities:following four possibilities:

1.1. A causes B. A causes B. 2.2. B causes A. B causes A.

3.3. A and B are both caused by a third A and B are both caused by a third factor, C.factor, C.

4. The observed correlation was due purely to 4. The observed correlation was due purely to chance.chance.

Red HerringRed Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. and to another topic.

Red HerringRed Herring

This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: 1.1. Topic A is under discussion. Topic A is under discussion. 2.2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of Topic B is introduced under the guise of

being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). relevant to topic A).

3.3. Topic A is abandoned. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. counts as an argument against a claim.

Examples of Red HerringExamples of Red Herring

"We admit that this measure is popular. But "We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous." whole thing is getting ridiculous."

"I think there is great merit in making the "I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected." do not want our salaries affected."

OvergeneralizationOvergeneralization

A generalization that goes beyond the A generalization that goes beyond the evidence.evidence.

Extending the argument to include broad, Extending the argument to include broad, unsubstantiated claims.unsubstantiated claims.

Bandwagon EffectBandwagon Effect

The observation that people often do (or The observation that people often do (or believe) things because many other believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. people do (or believe) the same.

An effort to win an argument by ignoring An effort to win an argument by ignoring relevant facts and logic and instead relevant facts and logic and instead appealing to a person’s desire to feel or appealing to a person’s desire to feel or act like everyone else around him.act like everyone else around him.

Websites Cited:Websites Cited:

http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/comm20/mod6.htmlhttp://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/comm20/mod6.html http://www.mikeleal.com/speech/chapter15.htmlhttp://www.mikeleal.com/speech/chapter15.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statisticsen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html http://http://www.abcte.org/teach/englishwww.abcte.org/teach/english-standards-standards http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effecten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect