Public Speaking Chapter Eight

Proof Support and Reasoning:

- Claims can be mathematical/scientific which are based on a system of rules by which
they can be proved with absolute certainty, or they can be rhetorical which are based on
beliefs, values, and judgments
- Rhetorical Proof does not ensure that a conclusion is correct, but it offers support for the
conclusion. It gives listeners confidence that the conclusion is probably correct
- Rhetorical proof justifies claims, although it does not establish that they are
unquestionably true, it gives a critical listener good reason to accept them
- Rhetorical proofs have degrees of support ranging from strong to weak
- The overriding factor in supporting a claim is the audience
- Speakers should focus on proofs that the audience already regard as solid, as well as
proofs that the audience should regard as solid
- A proof is reasonable if it would be taken seriously by a broad and diverse group of
listeners exercising their best critical judgment
- In offering a rhetorical proof you must satisfy the immediate audience and also must meet
a broader standard of reasonableness that would satisfy a larger imagined audience of
critical thinkers
- Any idea in the speech can be regarded as a unit of proof that has three principal
components:
o The Claim- the statement that you want the audience to accept, it is what you are
trying to prove
o Supporting Materials- provides evidence for your claim
o Reasoning- Links the supporting material to your claim so the audience can
decide if it really does support the claim
§ The claim and supporting materials are usually stated explicitly while
reasoning is usually implied, involving a leap from the supporting material
to the claim
§ The leap is called an inference
- 5 Important Aspects of Rhetorical Proof:
o Reasoning plays the crucial role in linking supporting materials to their claim
o Reasoning depends on an inference but cannot guarantee that the inference is right
o An inference often takes the form of an implicit statement that a general rule is
being followed
o The speaker and listeners together decide whether the inference is sound
o Nothing can guarantee that the inference of a rhetorical proof is correct, but tests
can distinguish between good and bad inferences
- The best time to construct effective reasoning relationships is after you research the
speech
- Beginning with the smallest claims in the outline, identify the supporting material, then
determine what kind of link will best connect the supporting material to each claim
- Broad categories of reasoning include example, analogy, sign, cause, testimony and
reasoning
- Not all cultures share the norms of reasoning or give the same emphasis to certain types
of reasoning
 - When speaking to a culturally diverse audience you will want to use multiple speaking
patterns in order to take the differences into account, most patterns will be applicable
across cultures even if the emphasis differs
Example:
- Overview:
o The most common reasoning pattern in public speaking is inference from
example. Examples are specific instances that are used to illustrate a more general
claim, the inference is that the specific is typical of the general
o Whether proceeding from specific to general or from general to specific the
inference is that particular cases are representative of the general category
o If the particular cases are not typical we cannot confidently infer that what is true
of them is true in general
o The strategic advantage of inference from example is that it makes a general or
abstract statement more concrete and tangible
o Any type of supporting material could provide the specific cases you use when
you reason from example
- Types of Inferences from Example:
o Individual versus Aggregate Examples
§ Individual cases will be less convincing than an aggregate example
o Factual versus Hypothetical Examples
§ A speaker may construct hypothetical examples, creating a vivid
illustration of something abstract
§ A speaker may have good reasons to offer a hypothetical example rather
than a factual one, but the invention should be acknowledged and should
never be treated as fact
o Brief versus Extended Examples
§ Sometimes a quick list of examples is effect because the speaker’s
emphasis is on the existence and number of cases rather than on their
details
§ It would be more effective to offer a more complete description of just one
case for some topics
- Tests for Inference from Example:
o Are there enough examples?
o Do the examples represent the whole category?
o Are the examples ambiguous?
o Are the examples fallacious?
§ The fallacy of composition results from assuming that what is true of the
part is automatically true of the whole
§ The fallacy of division results from assuming that what is true of the
whole is automatically true of the part
- Guidelines for Reasoning Through Example:
o Limit the number of examples
o Makes sure each example is believable
o Avoid obvious, overused examples
o Match the details of examples to your purpose
o Make the examples memorable
Analogy:
- Overview:
o The key feature of inference from analogy is a comparison between the known
and the unknown
o Analogical inferences are prominent in public speaking because they are
psychologically appealing to an audience. They enable us to accept something
that is unknown because it is similar to something that we do know
- Types of Inference from Analogy
o Literal Analogies
§ A direct comparison of objects people or events
o Figurative analogies
§ Compares the relationship between objects, people or events in order to
make complex or abstract statements more vivid and concrete
- Tests for Inference from Analogy
o Are there basic differences as well as similarities?
o Do the differences outweigh the similarities?
- Guidelines for Reasoning Through Analogy
o Avoid analogies that are trite or farfetched
§ An overused analogy will lose attention
§ An analogy not based on common sense will call a lot of attention and
distract from the point it was supposed to prove
o Analyze what you are comparing
§ Makes sure that you understand the essential similarities and differences
of the items in the analogy so that it is easier to argue that the similarities
are greater than the differences
o Use analogies sparingly
o Use analogies sensitively
§ The benefits of using an analogy may be undone if the comparison strikes
listeners as insensitive
Signs:
- Overview:
o A sign is something that stands for something else- which is usually an
abstraction or something that we cannot observe directly
o We infer that something exists based on something else that presumably is a sign
of it
- Types of Inference from Signs
o Physical observation
o Statistical indexes
o Institutional regularity
- Tests for Inference from Signs
o Is an alternative explanation more credible?
o Can the alleged sign be found without the thing for which it stands?
o Is the sign part of a pattern or a single unusual case?
- Guidelines for Reasoning Through Signs
o Use sign inference to link the abstract with the concrete
o Explain the sign relationship clearly
 o Point to multiple signs of what you want to infer
o Do not claim more for a sign inference than it can establish
Cause:
- Overview
o Unlike a sign a causal inference explains the relationship between things by
pointing to the influence of one thing on the other
o The cause must both precede and lead to the effect
o The speaker should provide reasons that the cause-effect relationship makes sense
and that no alternative explanation is more plausible
- Types of Inference from Causes
o Prediction
§ Some causal inferences explain changes by predicting what leads to what
o Assignment of Responsibility
§ To assign responsibility for something, to tell why it occurred
o Explanation
§ A causal inference also can be used to explain something that otherwise
doesn’t makes sense
o Steps to a Goal
§ A causal inference also can relate the means to the ends as when we know
our goals and want to determine the best way to attain them
- Tests for Inference from Causes
o Has a sign relation been confused with a causal relationship?
o Does a common cause of both factors make it seem that they have a cause effect
relationship?
§ Common cause fallacy, mistakenly remove what you think is the cause of
a problem only to discover that nothing changes
o Is there a post hoc fallacy?
§ Post hoc fallacy occurs if you assume that because one event occurred
after another it was caused by the earlier event
o Have important multipole causes or multiple effects been overlooked?
o Is there a likely alternative cause?
- Guidelines for Reasoning Through Causes
o Analyze what the alleged cause is and how it exerts its influence on the effect
o Realize that causal relationships are often complex and subtle
Testimony:
- Overview
o Using testimony is a strategic choice
o The benefit of inferences from testimony is that they make use of the sources
authority because their credibility is trusted and they build the ethos of the
speaker
- Types of Inference from Testimony
o Expert versus Lay Testimony
§ Expert testimony- the support of someone who is recognized as an
authority on a particular subject
§ Lay Testimony- citing the opinions of ordinary people to show what non-
experts think about the subject
 o Quoted versus Paraphrased Testimony
§ Quoted testimony repeats exact words, paraphrased gives a general idea
- Tests for Inference from Testimony
o Does the statement accurately reflect the source’s views?
o Is the source an expert on the topic?
o Is there a basis for the source’s statements?
§ A speaker who offers judgments without providing any basis for them is
said to be pontificate
o Is the source reasonably unbiased?
o Is the testimony up to date?
o Ask what each expert’s record of previous statements may imply about the quality
of judgement in this case
o Ask which expert’s testimony is closest to consensus in the field
o Ask which expert’s statement is most consistent with other things you already
know or believe
- Guidelines for Reasoning Through Testimony
o Be sure you quote or paraphrase accurately
o Draw on multiple sources of testimony
o State the credentials of your source
o Your own ethos affects the credibility of testimony you cite
Narrative:
- Overview
o When a speaker tells a story
o A story is powerful because it is personalized, and presents a broad topic as a
specific situation involving specific people
o Consists of characters, moves, resolution of conflict and an ending
o Can be a personal story or a hypothetical situation
- Types of Inference from Narrative:
o Is the narrative coherent?
o Is the narrative plausible?
o Are characterizations consistent?
o Does the narrative have resonance?
- Six General Tests for Inference from Narrative:
o Does the claim follow from the supporting material?
o Does the claim advance our understanding beyond the supporting material?
o Is the claim relevant to the issue?
o Is the language clear and unequivocal?
o Has probability been clearly distinguished from certainty?
o Is the speaker’s emotional response appropriate to the situation?
o The first issue is the appropriateness of the speaker’s emotional response
o Second should speakers always respond in the appropriate way
o Third be aware that emotional responses are sometimes misused
Rhetorical Proof: proof established through interaction between the speaker and the listeners;
provides support for a conclusion but not assurance that it is true
Reasonable: would be inferred by most people when exercising their critical judgement
Claim: a statement that a speaker asks listeners to accept and that the speaker tries to prove
Inference: mental leap from the supporting material to the claim
Examples: specific instances used to illustrate a more general claim
Representative: typical of the larger category from which a case is selected
Fallacy: an inference that appears to be sound but that on inspection contains a significant flaw
Fallacy of Composition: assuming that what is true of the part is automatically what is true of
the whole
Fallacy of Division: assuming that what is true of the whole is automatically what is true of the
part
Analogy: a comparison of people, places, things, events, or more abstract relationships
Literal Analogy: a direct comparison of objects, people, or events
Figurative Analogy: a comparison of the relationships between objects, people, or events
Sign: something that stands for something else
Physical Observation: Regarding something that can be observed as a sign of something that
cannot
Statistical Index: a statistical measure that is taken as a sign of an abstraction
Institutional Regularity: a sign relationship that results from norm or social convention
Causal Inference: a pattern of inference that suggest that one factor brings about another
Common Cause Fallacy: assuming that one thing causes another when in fact a third factor
really is the cause of both
Post Hoc Fallacy: assuming that because one event occurred before another the first is
necessarily the cause of the second
Expert Testimony: testimony from a person who is generally recognized as an authority on a
particular subject
Lay Testimony: testimony from a person who is not an expert
Pontificate: to offer judgements without providing any basis for them
Resonance: the quality of striking a responsive chord with listeners causing them to identify
with what one is saying
Non-Sequitur: a claim that on its face is unrelated to the supporting material
Circular Argument: only restating the claim in slightly different words rather than supporting
the claim
Ignoring the Question: making an inference that diverts attention from the issue at hand
Equivocal: having multiple meanings