“Developing Arguments for the Persuasive Speech”
Chapter 25 Notes Continued
I.
Types of Claims, Evidence, and Warrants
A. Claims Used in Persuasive Speeches
1. Claims of Fact
a. Persuasive Speeches based on claims of fact focus on whether
something is or is not true or whether something will or will not
happen. Claims of Fact usually address one of two kinds of questions.
b. Questions with competing answers: “Is the Office or Seinfeld the
funniest sitcom in television history?”
c. Questions with unknown answers (Speculative Claims): “Will a
woman president be elected in the United States within the next ten
years?
2. Claims of Value
a. Address issues of judgment or ethics.
b. Claims of Value require evidence. However, evidence supporting
value claims are sometimes more subjective than factual.
3. Claims of Policy
a. Speakers use claims of policy when recommending that a specific
course of action be taken, or approved of, by an audience. Legislators
regularly construct arguments based on claims of policy.
b. Ex. “Students who earn an A average on all speech assignments should
be exempt from the final exam.”
i. Notice that in each claim the word “should” appear. A claim of
policy speaks to an “ought” condition.
c. To build a strong case for a claim of policy, you must provide the
audience with a three-part justification consisting of 1) a need or
problem, 2) a solution, and 3) evidence of the solutions feasibility.
d. By nature, claims of policy involve claims of fact and often claims of
value as well.
i. Policy Claim: The city should provide walking paths in all
municipal parks.
ii. Fact: Almost every park in the city is busy several times each
day with recreational walkers. The activity is noticeably
greater on weekends.
iii. Value: Walking on properly maintained paths is healthier both
for walkers and for the park landscape.
B. Evidence Used in Persuasive Speeches
1. Audience Knowledge and Opinions
a. Research suggests that what your listeners already know or think about
your topic ultimately determines their acceptance or rejection of
claims you make about it.
b. Nothing is more persuasive to listeners than a reaffirmation of their
own attitudes, beliefs, and values, especially when making claims of
fact or value.
c. The key to using an audience’s knowledge and opinions to support
your claim is audience analysis.
2. Speaker Knowledge and Opinions
a. In order to use speaker knowledge as evidence, you must either have a
personal experience, or credentials proving that you are credible to
speak on the issue being presented.
b. Audience members must believe that you are credible to speak on the
topic or they will dismiss your argument.
3. External Evidence
a. Any information in support of a claim that originates with sources
other than the audience or the speaker. It consists of supporting
material such as: narratives, examples, testimony, facts, and statistics
drawn from outside sources.
b. Most influential if your audience has not formed an opinion yet.
Therefore, seek information that your audience most likely does not
know. The more credible the sources the more believable it is to the
audience.
C. Warrants used in Persuasive Speeches
1. Motivational Warrants: Appeals to Emotion (based on Pathos)
a. Motivational Warrants use the needs, desires, emotions, and values of
audience members as the basis for accepting some evidence as support
for a claim, and thus accepting the claim itself. These warrants are
implied rather than stated outright.
b. Some examples of needs and values that can operate as motivational
warrants in arguments include: career success; financial security;
physical attractiveness; strong marriages; health and wellness. (These
are all needs and desires that motivate people to act. Target these areas
in order to motivate.)
2. Authoritative Warrants: Appeals to Credibility (Based on Ethos)
a. Warrants that rely on an audience’s beliefs about the credibility or
acceptability of a source of evidence.
b. For Ex: In terms of sponsoring a hungry child, the speaker might make
the claim that we should contribute financially to an agency that feeds
hungry children. The speaker’s evidence is that any amount we give,
however small, will go far in meeting the agency’s objectives.
c. The success or failure of authoritative warrants rests on how highly the
audience regards the authority figure. If listeners hold the person in
high esteem, they are more likely to find the evidence and the claim
acceptable. Thus authoritative warrants make the credibility of sources
of evidence all the more important.
d. For Ex: Companies us famous people to indorse their products. “Tim
Tebow has said that Big Macs are his favorite food.”
3. Substantive Warrants: Appeals to Reasoning (Based on Logos)
a. Substantive Warrants: Operate on the basis of the audience’s beliefs
about the reliability of factual evidence. Three most used types include
causation, sign, and analogy.
b. Warrants by Cause: (also called reasoning by cause) offer a cause and
effect relationship as proof of the claim. For Example:
i. Claim: Candidate X lost his 2009 bid for the senate largely
because of his age.
ii. Evidence: Many available media reports refer to the age issue
with which Candidate X had to contend.
iii. Warrant: Our society attributes less competence to people who
are older versus those who are younger.
c. Warrants by Sign: (Also called reasoning by sign) imply that such a
close relationship exists between two variables that the presence or
absence of one may be taken as an indication of the presence or
absence of the other. For example:
i. Claim: Summer job opportunities for college students will
probably decline at resort locations in the southern Rocky
Mountains.
ii. Evidence: Throughout the southern Rockies in the late winter
and early spring, there was a record number of forest fires that
destroyed many resorts.
iii. Warrant Widespread natural disasters curtain employment in
the affected areas.
d. Warrants by Analogy: (also called reasoning by analogy) compare two
similar cases and imply that what is true in one case is true in the
other. For Example:
i. Claim: Students will have a better feeling about MR.
Honnacker’s speech class if he drops the absence policy.
II.
ii. Evidence: Student satisfaction increased substantially in Ms.
Orlander’s math class when she dropped the absence policy.
iii. Warrant: Mr. Honnacker’s speech class and Ms. Orlander’s
math class are equivalent with respect to other factors that
satisfy students.
D. Addressing the other side of the Argument
1. Inoculation Effect: According to this theory, by anticipating counterarguments
and then addressing or rebutting them, you can inoculate your listeners against
the virus of these other viewpoints.
2. The theory rests on the biological principle of inducing resistance through
exposure to small quantities of harmful substance.
3. If your listeners are unaware of any counterclaims, they may be persuaded by
your arguments for a time. However, once they hear other viewpoints they
may change their minds. If listeners are aware of counterclaims and you
ignore them, you risk a loss of credibility.
Fallacies of Reasoning
A. Definition: A logical fallacy is either a false or erroneous statement or an invalid
or deceptive line of reasoning.
B. Begging the Question: a fallacy in which an argument is stated in such a way that
it cannot help but be true, even though no evidence has been presented. To avoid
this, a speaker must offer evidence for the conclusion.
C. Bandwagoning: a fallacy in which a speaker poses arguments that use general
(unsupported) opinions as their (false) basis. Ex. “Nikes are superior to other
brands of shoes because everyone wears Nikes.”
D. Either-or Fallacy: a fallacy in which a speaker poses arguments stated in terms
of two alternatives only, even though there may be many additional alternatives.
E. Ad Hominem Argument: when a speaker targets a speaker instead of the issue at
hand in an attempt to incite an audience’s dislike for that person.
F. Red Herring: when the speaker’s argument relies on irrelevant premises for its
conclusion.
G. Hasty Generalization: when the speaker’s argument uses an isolated instance to
make an unwarranted general conclusion.
H. Non Sequitur: meaning “do not follow”; the argument’s conclusion does not
connect to the reasoning.
I. Slippery Slope: when the speaker makes a faulty assumption that one case will
lead to a series of events or actions.
J. Appeal to Tradition: when speakers phrase arguments to suggest that the
audience should agree with the claim because that is the way it has always been
done.