Persuasive Appeals in Speaking and Writing

Persuasive Appeals in Speaking and Writing[1]

I’d like to think that Thales was the first teacher who said to his pupil: “This is how I see things – how I believe things are. Try to improve upon my teaching.

-       K Popper[2]

It was a momentous innovation. It meant a break with dogmatic tradition which permits only one school of thought, and the introduction in its place of a tradition that admits plurality of doctrines which all try to approach the truth by means of critical discussion.

-       K Popper[3]

      I.         The most important attribute of any writer of speaker, Aristotle said, is ethos, the writer’s character or credibility. The ethos or “voice” (i.e. personality) in writing is the person you hear talking to you in that given situation. When you say that speakers or writers have “good” character, you imply that you approve of their morals, their sense of right and wrong; you share their values.

Skillful writers must appeal to their readers: to their minds, their emotions, and their ethics. You can reach your reader’s mind with logos (reason), your reader’s emotions with pathos (emotions) and your reader’s ethics with ethos (morality)

Logos (Greek for word)

To appeal to your reader’s mind, you must give reasons, examples, and details. If your reasons are good and your examples and details are appropriate, your logos will be convincing. Logic alone often fails to move people. Critical thinkers know that people can be shown factual evidence and can even seem to agree with intelligent reasoning – yet still fail to do the right thing.

Pathos (Greek for suffering; we use it to mean appealing to the emotions)

People can be moved with emotional appeals, and pathos is often stronger than logos. Pathos is an appeal that is easy to abuse. Critical thinkers must beware of arguments aimed at their emotions. Be sure that pathos is legitimate, appropriate, and used with restraint.

Ethos (Greek for character; from it we have the word ethics)

The most important attribute of any writer of speaker, Aristotle said, is ethos, the writer’s character or credibility. The ethos or “voice” (i.e. personality) in writing is the person you hear talking to you in that given situation. When you say that speakers or writers have “good” character, you imply that you approve of their morals, their sense of right and wrong; you share their values.

    II.         Hacker[4] identifies how to evaluate and distinguish reasonable arguments and statements:

• Generalizing (inductive reasoning): Drawing conclusions from an array of facts. Such reasoning deals in probability, not certainty. Be cautious of hasty generalizations

• Stereotypes: A hasty generalization about a group; e.g. ‘Asian students are exceptionally intelligent.’

• Drawing analogies: An analogy points out a similarity between two things that are otherwise different. (An effective means of arguing a point.) e.g. ‘If we can put humans on the moon, we should be able to find a cure for the common cold.’ [false analogy]

• Tracing cause and effect: Drawing a connection between causes and effects is rarely a simple matter, with writers frequently oversimplifying.

• Post hoc fallacy (“After this, therefore, because of this”): Writers often assume that one event follows from another , the first is the cause of the second – post hoc fallacy. e.g. ‘Since Mitt Romney took office, unemployment of minorities in the state has decreased 7 percent. Governor Romney should be applauded for reducing unemployment among minorities.’

• Either …or fallacy”: Writers who set up a false choice between their preferred option and one that is clearly unsatisfactory, e.g. ‘Our current war on drugs has not worked. Either we should legalize drugs or we should turn the drug war over to our armed forces and let them fight it.’

• Making assumptions: An assumption is a claim that is taken to be true – without the need of proof. There is a danger, however, in failing to spell out and prove a claim that is clearly controversial, e.g. ‘Violent crime is increasing. Therefore we should vigorously enforce the death penalty.’ [There is an assumption the death penalty will deter violent criminals – and that most audiences will agree.]

• Non Sequitor (“does not follow”): e.g. ‘Mary loves good food; therefore she will be an excellent cook.’ Few people would agree with the missing claim – that lovers of good food always make excellent chefs.

• Deducing conclusions (deductive reasoning): We establish that a general principle is true, that a specific case is an example of that principle, and that therefore a particular conclusion is a certainty, e.g. ‘All members of our club ran in this year’s Boston Marathon. Jay ran in this year’s Boston Marathon. Therefore, Jay is a member of our club.’ [The conclusion does not follow.]

• Emotional appeals: Aristotle lists pathos (emotion) as a legitimate argumentative tactic.

• Opposing views: How does the writer handle opposing views? – quoting opposing views is a good idea, for it assures some level of fairness and accuracy, however a source may be misrepresented when it is quoted out of context.

• Straw man fallacy: Setting up a character so weak that he is easily knocked down. The straw man fallacy consists of an oversimplification or outright distortion of opposing views.

Rubric for assessing spoken and written arguments and statements

	Present (weakens argument or statement)	Absent (thus stronger argument or statement)	Comment
Generalizing (inductive reasoning)
Stereotypes
Drawing analogies
Tracing cause and effect
Post hoc fallacy (“After this, therefore, because of this”)
Either …or fallacy
Making assumptions
Non Sequitor (“does not follow”)
Deducing conclusions (deductive reasoning)
Emotional appeals
Opposing views
Straw man fallacy
Colloquialism, idioms, slang
Logos
Pathos
Ethos
Organization

Are you sure? How do you know that? Can you tell us more? I agree with this idea, but… To illustrate my point Is that the right question to ask? Let me give you an example Have I expressed it clearly? The table shows… On the one hand…

Can you explain why? I don’t understand… What do you mean by…? As I understand it… What does…mean? Could you give another example? Let me put it another way What I meant to say was… If this is true…

---

[1] From Memering, D. & Palmer, W. (2002). Discovering arguments: An introduction to critical thinking and writing, with readings. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, pp. 13-27.

[2] K Popper, from Hawes, K. (1990). Understanding critical thinking, In Howard, V.A. Varieties of Thinking: Essays from Harvard’s Philosophy of Education Research Center. New York and London: Routledge, pp.47 – 61.

[3] K Popper, from Hawes, K. (1990). Understanding critical thinking, In Howard, V.A. Varieties of Thinking: Essays from Harvard’s Philosophy of Education Research Center. New York and London: Routledge, pp.47 – 61.

[4] Hacker, D. (2002). The Bedford Handbook, Sixth Edition. Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, pp. 477-518.