Persuasive rhetoric and argument


Published on

Outlines basic logic used in rhetoric. Includes formulating claims, premises, conclusions, and arguments. For Speech Communication classes.

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Persuasive rhetoric and argument

  1. 1. Rhetoric & Argument
  3. 3. Logical Syllogism MAJOR PREMISE If Socrates is a man MINOR PREMISE And all men are mortal CONCLUSION Then Socrates is mortal
  4. 4. 4 ways to state a premise Universal Affirmative – All people are mortal Universal Negative – No people are perfect Particular Affirmative – Some people are healthy Particular Negative – Some people are not healthy
  5. 5. Reasoning Processes DEDUCTIVE INDUCTIVE
  6. 6. REASONING PREMISE: Austin is unprepared for the growth it is experiencing. OBSERVATIONS: Roadways and mass transit cannot keep pace with the growth. Housing is expensive and scarce. Water rationing and concerns about utility blackouts. Cultural character is changing. CONCLUSION: Austin needs to make immediate changes that accommodate growth and maintain the quality of life that makes Austin a great place to live.
  7. 7. Definitions CLAIM – A declarative statement that can be proved true or false PREMISE – Proposition or assumed truth (claim) upon which the argument is based INFERENCE – Process of applying reason to knowledge (claim) that is known or assumed to be true to reach valid conclusions ARGUMENT – Verbal expression of the inference CONCLUSION – The claim being supported by the argument SYLLOGISM – The format of argument using three statement
  8. 8. RHETORICAL CLAIMS Factual Prove Document Evaluative Good Bad Helpful Harmful Like Dislike Causal If then Because As a result Recommendation Should Need Must
  9. 9. Common Support CLAIMS
  10. 10. Causal Claims Use these facts: Austin is growing by110 people per day. Austin’s traffic is ranked 3rd worst in U.S. To make a Causal Claim about traffic in Austin CAUSAL CLAIMS LINK TWO FACTS TOGETHER. BASIC If – then REASONING
  11. 11. Comparison Claim Use these facts: National job growth .61% California job growth .52% Texas job growth 1.4% To make a Comparison Claim
  12. 12. Authority Claim Use this fact and source: Aquifer depletion between 2004 and 2008 was nearly triple the historical rate. Source: United States Geological Association To make an Authority Claim *The source of information must be an expert in the field
  13. 13. Appeal to Needs & Values Use these facts: Shopping locally puts 3X as much money into our local economy (NEED) Shopping locally supports the character and uniqueness of the community (VALUE) To Appeal to Needs and Values
  14. 14. Address Counter arguments Use this information: The city council is considering lowering the occupancy rate for homes from 6 unrelated adults to 4. In the 78751 zip code north of UT where rents are high. The demographics are mostly singles and students. Pick a side and make a claim that Addresses the Counter argument
  15. 15. Define What is rapid transit? Bus? Rail? Something else? Why is it called “rapid?” How fast is “rapid”? Make a definitive statement about whether MetroRapid actually addresses traffic problems in Austin.
  16. 16. Give Examples The argument is that shopping at local businesses instead of National Chains and Big Box stores helps the community. Can you name some examples of locally owned businesses in Austin?
  17. 17. Penguin Syllogism Avoid using rhetorical fallacies Challenge rhetorical fallacies when you hear them
  18. 18. Common Logical FALLACIES
  19. 19. Appeal to Authority Authority is not always an expert on the subject • Ex. “Doctors” in commercial ads. Forget about other side of argument • Hardest thing to do!
  20. 20. Appeal to Force The dangers predicted are not inevitable The consequences presented play on fear
  21. 21. Appeal to Popularity Popularity equals truth and reason •Advertisers love this fallacy • Ex. Mean Girls •Majority can be wrong!
  22. 22. Ad Hominem or Personal attack • Shifting your argument from objective to personal. • Attack the author instead of the argument.
  23. 23. Name Calling Negative Label Stigmatize opponent
  24. 24. Hasty Generalization Inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence.
  25. 25. False Dilemma Presents an either-or situation that is not truly either-or. There could be more than two choices The audience doesn’t have to choose right now
  26. 26. Straw Man Inaccurate presentation of ideas Creates a ‘straw man’ or argument that is easy to knock down
  27. 27. False Analogy The two ideas being compared are not really similar.
  28. 28. Slippery Slope Suggests that one event following another is inevitable. If – then statement that does not reflect a reasonable prediction.
  29. 29. Begging the Question Circular reasoning Assumes truth without proof