Persuasion and

argumentation

Aqila Zaman
SS 100 Reading Pack

1
Argumentation

 “Argumentation is the art of

influencing others, through the
medium of reasoned discourse, to
believe or act as we wish them to
believe or act.”

JM O’Neill et al

2
Strategies of persuasion

 Ethos - credibility of the

speaker/writer
 Pathos - emotional aspect
 Logos - appeal to reason
Aristotle

3
1. Ethos
 Creating ethos:
1. Personal information - standing,
position, credibility of position, reputation,
education, experience, expertise, ethical
principles
2. Sounding credible - using an
authoritative voice, ‘voice merging’/quoting
from authoritative sources

4
3. Identifying with the reader - sharing
personal information, appealing to reasons
supporting community values
4. Point of view - using I or we establishes
a friendly relationship. Using you is dictatorial
and can distance the reader. He/she create
objectivity
5. Word choice - speaking the language of
the community
5
 To create ethos students must:
- include their own reflections and
conclusions, but they must also quote,
paraphrase and summarize other
writers and add references to avoid
plagiarism

6
2. Pathos

 Pathos is a Greek word for emotion

or feeling. The emotional appeal is
manipulative, but it is essential for
moving people to action

7
 Creating pathos:
1. Concrete examples - using
descriptive language to recreate
the experience
2. Word choice - Must pay
attention to connotation of words
and figurative language such as:

8
- Metaphor - an implied comparison:
He is a snake
- Simile – comparison: He is like a snake
- Hyperbole - extreme exaggeration
- Understatement
- Personification - assigning human
characteristics to non human things
- Irony - incongruity between what is
said and what is meant
9
3. Logos

 Logos means word, thought or law.

It is the basis of rational
persuasion through reasoning.
 Whenever we are engaged with
ideas and reason we are arguing

10
Structure of an argument
 1. Claims - the claim is the statement under
dispute
 2. Support/Reasons - a claim must be
supported by one or more reasons (data)
 3. Warrant/Assumptions - show the
connection between the support and the
claim
 4. Definition - terms must be defined,
before there can be an argument

11
 Claim: Adopting a vegetarian diet leads
to a healthier life
 Support: The author of ‘Becoming a
Vegetarian Family’ say so
 Warrant: The author of this book is a
reliable source of information

12
Claims of fact
 Claims of fact assert that a condition
has existed, exists, or will exist and
their support consists of factual
information
 Our senses or observations can confirm

them, as can reference books, scientific

data or atlases
e.g., apples are sweeter than potatoes.
Polio cases in Pakistan are increasing.
13
Defending a claim of fact
 State the claim clearly at the beginning
 Define terms that may be ambiguous or
controversial e.g., fundamentalists
 Make sure the data supporting your
claim is sufficient, accurate, recent and
from a reliable source
 Indicate when your conclusions are
inferences or opinions, not facts
 Arrange your support in order of
importance 14
Claims of value

 Claims of value make a judgment;

they express approval or
disapproval e.g., democracy is
better than other forms of
government. 2. Mercy killing is
unethical.
 Claims of value can be defended or
attacked on the basis of standards
15
Defending a claim of value
 Try to make clear that the values you
are defending have priority on any scale
of values e.g., freedom of the press
 Suggest that there will be benefits if
your values are accepted
 Use examples and illustrations to clarify
meanings
 Use testimony of experts or respected
people who share your value
16
Claims of policy
 Claims of policy argue that certain
conditions should exist. They suggest
courses of action to be taken because
problems have arisen e.g., Smoking
should be banned in LUMS.
 In this case you have to convince your
audience that a problem exists; this
may involve claims of facts and values

17
Defending claims of policy
 Make your proposal clear
 Establish that there is a need for change
 State the opposing arguments
 Prove that your proposal is the answer
to the opposing arguments
 Support your proposal with solid data
but also keep in mind common sense
and moral considerations

18
Support
 Consists of the material used to
convince the reader of the
soundness of a claim
 It may consist of facts, ststistics,
and testimony from experts
 Motivational appeals can also be
used

19
Warrant
 It guarantees the soundness of the
relationship between the support
and the claim
 Warrants are assumptions that
underlie our claim

20
Exigence
 Shows why a claim is being made
at a specific time rather than any
other time. It indicates the trigger
for a claim
 E.g. Inflated electricity bills must
be revised by the government
(street protests)

21
Inductive and deductive
reasoning

 Inductive reasoning reasons from a

large number of particular examples to
a general rule. The premise should
provide some degree of support for the
conclusion
e.g., Most of my friends are widows, so it
is obvious that men die earlier than
women
22
Deductive reasoning moves from
given statements (premises) which are
assumed to be true to conclusions
which must be true
e.g., All men are mortal (major premise);
Socrates is a man so Socrates is mortal

23
Fallacies
 Fallacies are mistakes in reasoning
that may not seem to be mistakes
at all

 They violate a criteria of a good

argument

24
Criteria of a good argument

1. Relevant premise
2. Acceptable premise
3. Sufficient grounds of an argument
to establish its conclusion
4. Effective rebuttal to serious
challenges to its conclusions or the
argument itself

25
Fallacies may be based on
 Problems of insufficient evidence
 Based on irrelevant information
 Based on ambiguity
 Based on faulty logic

26
Types of fallacies

 1. Slippery slope - conclusion based

on the premise that if A happens B will
also happen e.g., If you drive so fast
you will have an accident.
 2. Hasty generalization - rushing to a
conclusion without enough basis e.g.,
The accident must have been his fault
because he drives so fast.
27
 3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc - a
conclusion that assumes that if A occurred
after B, then B must have caused A, e.g., She
came out of the room crying; you must have
said something mean to her.
 4. Genetic fallacy - conclusion based on an
argument that the origins of a theory/idea
determine its nature or worth, e.g., It’s true
that women are less intelligent than men
because my grandfather told me so.
28
 5. Begging the claim - the conclusion the
writer should prove is merely stated in the
claim e.g., It is obvious that the government
is responsible for the power shortage.
 6. Circular argument - this restates the
argument without proving it e.g., Bhutto was
a good orator because he spoke effectively.

29
 7. Either/or - oversimplifies the argument
by limiting it to two sides only e.g., Either you
are with us or you are with our enemies.
 8. Ad hominem - an attack on the person
rather than on their opinions e.g., How can
he lead our anti-smoking campaign? He was
a heavy smoker.

30
 9. Ad populum - an appeal to the negative
or positive aspects rather than the real issue
at hand e.g., If you do not support our cause
people will think you are with the
administration.
 10. Red herring - diversionary tactic to
avoid the key issues e.g., You should vote for
our candidate because the other candidate
was involved in a sex scandal.
31
Rogerian argument
 This is a less confrontational approach
to argument which is effective on many
occasions
 It is a kind of argument where
understanding and compromise replace
the adversarial attitude
 Its goal is not to win an argument but
to open lines of communication

32
Fallacies?
 1. If you drive so fast you will have an
accident.
 2. The accident must have been his
fault because he drives so fast.
 3. She came out of the room crying;
you must have said something mean to
her.

33
 4. It is true that women are less
intelligent than men because my
grandfather told me so.
 5. It is obvious that the government is
responsible for the power shortage.
 6. Bhutto was a good orator because he
spoke effectively.

34
 7. Either you are with us or you are
with our enemies.
 8. How can he lead our anti-smoking
campaign? He was a heavy smoker.
 9. If you do not support our cause
people will think you are with the
administration.

35
 10. You should vote for our candidate
because the other candidate was
involved in a sex scandal.

36