A
speech in which the speaker’s goal
is one of the following:
› To Convince
› To Actuate
› To Stimulate (Inspire)

Ethical Proofs
› Ethos (Greek-Character) Refers to the
believability of the speaker
 People often accept or reject message not
because of the logical merit of the argument
but because of the ethos of the speaker.
 Do people believe the speaker because of
who he is rather than what he says?

High Ethos characteristics:
› Appearance: poise, confidence, age, use of
body movements
› Vocal Tone: serious, strong voices impress
(Think James Earl Jones— “This is CNN”)
› Appeals to sentiment: honesty reliability,
conscientiousness, congeniality
 Background:
dedicated to principles,
reputation, status, education, special
accomplishments
 Ethos
must always be defined in
relation to the audience in question
(also called “source credibility” or
“source image”)
 Ethos
may work for or against
speaker’s message…
 Ethos
can work for speaker:
poet—literary society; veteran—war
memorial services
 Ethos
can work against speaker:
malpractice lawyer—A.M.A
conference
 Emotional Proofs
› Pathos (Greek—suffering) appeals to the
emotions of audiences of the audience
 Four Appeals…
› Appeals to sympathy: “underdogs”—poor,
sick, oppressed, vulnerable
› Appeals to fear: an awareness of danger,
trouble, dreadful power (can be used by
insurance company)
› Appeals to love—patriotism, social cohesion
(Red Cross—Blood Drive)
› Appeals to anger
 Emotional
proofs draw of Maslow’s
hierarchy of human needs. These five
basic needs dictate what motivates
us.
 Logos:
Belief created by appealing to
the audience’s sense of reason
› Evidence
› Types of support using logical proofs
› Examples, statistics, and testimony

Specific instances of situation or principle

Specific occurrences of situation or
principle

Must Describe

Percentages

Averages

Ranks

Quoting or restating an expert’s opinion

Not as strong as facts

Must be reliable (Who said it? What are
his/her Qualifications?)

Assertion: reasons why we should or
should not do something

Evidence: statistics, examples, testimony
as proof of why we should or should not
do something

Conclusion: restate reasons why; discuss
expediency

Propositions of fact (can be “backed
up”)
› Speaker asks audience to accept something
as a fact (as true or false)
› Ex. Trial lawyer asks his audience (jury) to
accept as fact that his client is innocent
› Ex: Vitamin C can reduce frequency of
colds.
› Note: Most scientific hypotheses are
proposition of fact.

Proposition of value (contains “better” ,
“worse”)
› Speaker ask audience to accept something
as good or bad; in most cases, uses better or
best
› Ex. A is better than B

Major difference between propositions
of fact and value:
› Fact appeals to standards of truth, existence
or reality
› Value applies to standards of goodness,
interest, beauty

Propositions of problem
› Speaker tries to create concern/awareness
for problems by showing that such problems
are significant
› goal: to show significant harm

Propositions of policy (contain the word
“should”)
› Speaker asserts that a particular course of
action is wise or expedient
› Audience should decide: “That’s what we
should do to solve this problem.”

Policy speeches show the problem then
offer solution