Coms 101 Laidlaw Midterm 2

competence

how an audience regards a speakers intelligence, expertise, and knowledge for the topic

character

how an audience regards a speakers sincerity, trustworthiness, and concern for wellbeing of audience

red herring

introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention from subject at hand

hasty generalization

jump to conclusion on basis of insufficient evidence

persuasion

process of creating, reinforcing, or changing people's beliefs or actions. your job is to get listens to agree with you and act on that belief

reasoning

process of drawing conclusion based on evidence 1. make sure reasoning is sound 2. try to get listeners to agree with reasoning

question of value

question about worth, rightness, morality, and so forth of an idea or action is ______ justifiable?

analogical reasoning

reasoning in which a speaker compares 2 similar cases and infers that what is true for 1st case is also true for 2nd case if you're good at tennis, you'll probably be good at ping pong

causal reasoning

reasoning that establishes relationships between cause and effects Because I was up late studying, I aced my test

credibility is determined by

sociability, attractiveness, similarity between speaker and audience

appeal to novelty

something new is automatically better than old

speech to gain passive agreement

speaker goal is to convince the audience that a given policy is desirable but not asking for an action

type of question of policy

speech to gain passive agreement speech to gain immediate action

evidence

supporting materials used to prove/disprove something, enhances credibility, increases persuasiveness show not tell

ethos

credibility

pathos

emotional appeal

target audience

portion of the whole audience that speaker most wants to persuade know where your audience stands and tailor your speech towards them the people on the fence or neutral

question of fact

question about the truth or falsity of an assertion, question of fact are partisan (biased)

5 components of monroe's

1. Attention 2. Need 3. Satisfaction 4. Visualization 5. Action

Visualization consists of

1. ask audience to imagine 2 scenarios 2. use emotional appeal (pathos) vivid images

Attention consists of

1. attention grabber 2. make audience curious 3. establish common ground (ethos)

3 ways to enhance credibility

1. explaining competence - advertise your expertise and talk about your research 2. create common ground with audience - speaker connects themselves with the values of the audience 3. delivery - credibility is strongly connected to speakers delivery

types of credibility

1. initial - credibility before start speaking 2. derived - credibility speaker produces by everything they say 3. terminal - credibility after speech

3 steps to analyze question of policy

1. need 2. plan 3. practicality

4 basic methods of reasoning

1. reasoning from specific instances 2. reasoning from principle 3. causal reasoning 4. analogical reasoning

Action consists of

1. specific - ask for specific action so they are clear on what you want 2. immediate - ask them for an immediate action (now) even if symbolic 3. physical - ask them for a physical action so you can see who you persuaded (show of hands)

Need consists of

1. state problem 2. show why need for change 3. evidence to show problem exists 4. show how it directly relates to audience

Satisfaction consists of

1. state thesis - acts as solution to problem 2. tell them why they should by reasoning (logos) 3. use evidence to support thesis (logos) 4. explain how to incorporate into their lives 5. address opposition and refute

how to generate emotional appeal

1. use emotional language 2. develop vivid examples 3. speak with sincerity and conviction

Tips for using evidence

1. use specific evidence 2. use novel evidence 3. use evidence from credible sources 4. make clear the point of the evidence

credibility

audience's perception of whether a speaker is qualified to speak on the topic influenced by competence and character

fallacy

error in reasoning

either or

forces listeners to choose between 2 alternatives when more than 2 exist "you're either with us or against us"

reasoning from principle

general principle -> specific conclusion all people are nice, bob is a person, bob is nice

invalid analogy

when two cases being compared are not essentially alike employees are like nails. they need to be hit on head to make them work

false cause

when you assume that one event causes another just because it precedes it "post hoc"

question of policy

whether a specific course of action should or should not be taken should abortion be legal?

logos

appeal to logic

slippery slope

assumes after taking a first step it will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevents

appeal to tradition

assumes that something old is automatically better than something new

bandwagon

assumption that if something is popular, it is thus good/desirable/correct

ad hominem

attacks person rather than dealing with real issue in dispute

2 components of credibility:

competence character

speech to gain immediate action

convince audience to take action in support of given policy

when the audience listens, they assess the speakers:

credibility, delivery, supporting materials, language, reasoning, emotional appeals

mental dialogue with audience

mental give and take between speaker and listener during persuasion -- anticipate possible objections

reasoning from specific instances

particular facts -> general conclusion im a good cook, my dads a good cook, my moms a good cook -> my family is all really good at cooking