chapter 17 review questions

What is analogical reasoning? Why is analogical reasoning frequently used in persuasive speeches on questions of policy?

Analogical reasoning compares two similar cases to draw the conclusion that what is true in one case will also be true in the other. Example: If you're good at tennis, you're probably good at ping pong When arguing for a new policy, you should find out whether it has been tried elsewhere. You may be able to claim that your policy will work because it has worked in like circumstances.

What is causal reasoning? Why is the relationship between causes and effects not always clear?

Causal reasoning tries to establish the relationship between causes and effects. The fact that one event happens after another does not mean that the first is the cause of the second.

What is credibility? what two factors exert the most influence on an audience's perception of a speaker's credibility?

Credibility is the audience's attitude toward or perception of the speakers. A speaker's credibility is affected by two primary factors: Competence and Character. Competence: how an audience regards a speaker's intelligence, expertise, and knowledge of the subject Character: how an audience regards a speaker's sincerity, trustworthiness, and concern for the well-being of the audience.

What is the role of emotional appeal in persuasive speaking? Identify three methods you can to generate emotional appeal in your speeches.

Emotional appeal is intended to make listeners feel sad, angry, guilty, fearful, reverence, or the like: 1. Use emotionally charged language 2. Vivid examples 3. Speak with sincerity and conviction

What are the ten logical fallacies discussed in this chapter?

Hasty Generalization- most common used fallacy. This is when a speaker jumps to a conclusion based off of only a few facts. For example: college dropouts with always be extremely successful. Just look at Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs. They all dropped out and became billionaires and creating powerful companies False Cause- when a speaker mistakenly assumes that because one event follows another, the first event is the cause of the second. For example: When a team from the NFC wins the super bowl, economic growth during the next year is stronger than when a team from the AFC wins the Super Bowl. Therefore, if we want economic growth, we should root for a team from the NFC to win this year's super bowl. There may be a slight correlation between economic growth and which conference wins the super bowl, but there is no casual connection between the two events. Whether the American economy rises or falls is not dependent on the outcome of the Super Bowl. Invalid analogy- an analogy in which two cases being compared are not essentially alike. For example: Employees are like nails, Just as nails must be hit on the head to get them to work, so much employees. Another example: In Great Britain, the general election campaign for prime minister lasts about a month, Surely we can do the same with the U.S. presidential election. Bandwagon- when someone assumes that if something is popular, it is therefore good, correct, or desirable. For example: The governor must be correct in his approach to social policy; after all, the polls show that 60 percent of the people support him. Another example: there are more advertisements for Tylenol as a pain reliever so people think it's better and works better to relieve pain. This may or may not be true but it comes down to scientific evidence. Red Herring- A fallacy that introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject under discussion. For example: "How dare my opponents accuse me of political corruption at a time when we are working to improve the quality of life for all people in the United States" What does the speaker's concern about the quality of life in the United States have to do with whether he or she is guilty of political corruption? Nothing! it is a red herring used to divert attention away from the real issue. AD Hominem- a fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute. For example: A politician arguing that his opponent cannot possibly be a good choice for women because he has a religious conviction that causes him to be pro-life. Another example: A lawyer who argues that his client should not be held responsible for theft because he is poor. Either-or- a fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist. For example: Jesus was either God or a crazy person. You are either with us, or against us. You can either like dogs or like cats. Every moral choice is either black or white Slippery Slope- The fallacy which assumes that one step will lead to a downfall of more negative steps. For example: Now that people only text on phones these days and communicate through social media, it's a matter of time before people forget how to hand write proper sentences out entirely. Appeal to Tradition- the fallacy which assumes that something old is automatically better than something new. For example: "I don't see any reason to abolish the electoral college. It has been around since 1789 and we should keep it as long as the United States continues to exist" Appeal to Novelty- the opposite of appeal to tradition. This fallacy assumes that something new is automatically better than something old. For example: Our church should adopt the updated New International Version of the Bible because it is 400 years newer than the King James Version."

What are the differences among initial credibility derived credibility and terminal credibility?

Initial Credibility- The credibility of a speaker before she or he starts to speak. Derived credibility- The credibility of a speaker produced by everything she or he says and does during the speech. terminal credibility- The credibility of a speaker at the end of the speech.

What are three ways you can enhance your credibility during your speeches?

Speakers can enhance their credibility by: -explaining their competence- ex: "through my experience" -establishing common ground with the audience- connecting with the audience through experiences etc. -delivering speeches fluently, expressively, and with conviction- avoid saying words like "um" uh" because this shows the audience that your speech is not well practiced and prepared. Also, if you talk to slowly while presenting your speech, you can come off as incompetent.

What are four tips for using evidence effectively in a persuasive speech?

Speakers should use: -specific evidence- very specific stats, etc. -novel evidence- evidence that the audience has never heard before and makes them think "hmmm, interesting! I didn't know that." -evidence from credible sources- audience will be suspicious if you use evidence that seems unbiased and untrustworthy -make a clear point of the evidence

What is evidence? Why do persuasive speakers need to use evidence?

The evidence consists of examples, statistics, and testimony used to prove or disprove something. Careful listeners are skeptical of unsupported claims and generalizations. Strong evidence is particularly important when the speaker is not recognized as an expert on the topic and when the target audience opposes the speaker's point of view.

What is reasoning from a specific instance? why is it important to supplement reasoning from specific instances with testimony or statistics?

reasoning that moves from particular facts to a general conclusion example: my physical education course last term was easy. My friends physical education course last term was easy. Conclusion: Physical education courses are easy -it's important to supplement reasoning from a specific instance with testimony and statistics because you can never give enough specific instances in a speech to make your conclusion impossible to deny. So by doing this, it shows that your arguments are representative.

What is reasoning from principle? How is it different from reasoning from specific instances?

the opposite of reasoning from a specific instance. It's when you move from a general idea to a specific conclusion example: I know it's possible for someone to survive a fall from a ten story building because it's actually happened before.