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