>> Hello again, class!
One last chapter before we're done with the textbook here.
Now numerically there are other chapters, but you've probably already gone over those before
because they have to do with specific speeches.
Ok, so today we're going to talk about methods of persuasion.
This is a little bit of a longer chapter, so I'm going to break it up into two parts.
We're going to go over ethos or ethics first.
We'll go over logic and reasoning.
And then we'll talk a little bit of a break and come back and we'll do logical fallacies,
kind of the second part of ight logos, and we'll go over emotions or pathos.
So stick with me here.
Again, this is a little bit longer chapter and I'm going to kind of go through it quickly.
Ok, so methods of persuasion.
So far you've kind of learned how to organize it and different types of persuasive speeches
as far as fact, value, policy, all of that.
But now we're going to get into how you actually go about persuading.
So methods of persuasion, and I always think of this as the Aristotle chapter because it's based
on some principles from Aristotle.
So the first one is building credibility.
The second is using evidence and reasoning, and then finally appealing to emotions.
So I will start with building credibility.
So really what we're talking about here is ethos.
This is Aristotle's name for credibility, and according to Aristotle and Lucas,
your credibility has everything to do with the perception of your competence and character.
It really has nothing to do with whether you're competent or of good character.
It has to do with the audience's perception, just like we've talked
about before in the introductory chapter.
So you need to let the audience know
that you are a credible speaker, that you have ethos or ethics.
Ok, so different types of credibility that you have or gain during a speech.
So the first is an initial credibility.
This is what you have before the speech, and this is why a lot of times in bigger speeches,
you know, out in the real world you'll have someone do an introductory speech.
Well, that person that's doing the introductory speech is there
to establish some initial credibility.
So for you guys because you don't really have anyone introducing you, you need to establish
that initial credibility in your introduction.
And if you do a good job with that, that goes a long way
for helping the audience to believe you.
Derived credibility is produced during the speech.
And this is why sometimes your instructor or me will get on you for previewing your points
and using good clear transitions to highlight your points
because your derived credibility comes during the speech
by telling the audience what you're going to tell them and then telling them that in
that order, doing what you said you were going to do, and then reviewing it.
So a well-organized speech helps you derive credibility in the body.
And then finally terminal is at the end of the speech,
and this is when the audience can kind of go back.
Did they make sense?
Did the evidence work?
Did the reasoning work?
Did they do what they say they were going to do?
Or did they go off on tangents?
So different types of credibility and you need to try to work all of them in your speech
so the audience will believe you.
Ok, so how do you do that?
First of all, explain your competence.
Tell us why you're credible.
We don't know you.
We don't know that you're credible to speak on this topic.
You need to tell us why you're credible to speak on this topic.
Establish common ground with us.
Let us know that you're on our side here.
And we'll see an example of someone doing that here.
>> As we all know, there are many differences amongst the people in this class.
But we do have one thing in common.
We're all concerned about the quality of the education at this school.
And that quality is clearly in danger because of the economic crisis.
Budgets are shrinking.
Student services are disappearing.
And we're being crowded out of classes we need to take.
Now there are no easy answers.
But one thing that would help solve the problem is an increase in tuition.
I don't like it any more than you do.
But sometimes you must do what is necessary to maintain the quality of your education.
>> And he lets us know that hey, I don't like this any more than you do.
And this kind of goes back to the last chapter
of having a mental dialogue with the audience as well.
Ok, so explain your competence, establish that common ground,
speak expressively and with conviction.
If you're just standing there reading from a paper or reciting it from memory and droning on,
that's not expressive and that's not with conviction.
Let us know why you believe this.
Let us know why you know this.
It will go a long way to establishing that credibility.
Ok. Logos.
This is Aristotle's name for logical appeals, and this really is evidence and reasoning.
So evidence we know is supporting material used to prove or disprove something.
And types of evidence you can use, you can use examples,
you can use statistics, you can use testimony.
We had a whole chapter on that.
But just because you have good examples, good statistics,
and good testimony doesn't necessarily mean that that supports what you want it to support.
So that's what we have to go into reasoning.
Ok, so before we move onto that, evidence.
Use specific evidence.
Don't just use evidence, well, in a book I read or some guy told me one time.
No. It needs to be specific.
So use a specific study or a quote or a statistic.
Use novel evidence.
Use evidence that the audience hasn't already come across because if it's a piece
of evidence they've already heard before, they've already formed an opinion about it.
So giving them a new piece of evidence, they don't have an opinion about it,
so you can help them formulate that opinion.
Use credible evidence.
Again, your credibility has to do in part with the evidence that you use.
So use credible evidence from credible sources.
And then make clear the point of your evidence.
Don't just throw a piece of evidence out there
and assume your audience is going to figure out what it means.
They're not.
You need to let them know what it means.
So when you put a piece of evidence out there, explain it,
and we'll see an example of that here.
>> No matter how one looks at the evidence, it all leads to one fact.
There are too many motor vehicle accidents, deaths, and injuries involving teenage drivers.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, while teenagers make up 7%
of the nation's licensed drivers, they represent 14% of all motor vehicle fatalities.
The NHTSA reports that last year 3,657 drivers aged 16
to 20 were killed in automobile accidents.
In addition to killing the drivers,
these same accidents took the lives of 2,384 teenage passengers.
But these accidents didn't affect teenagers alone.
They also took the lives of 2,625 people aged 21 or older.
So the total number of people killed last year
in automobile accidents involving teenaged drivers was 8,666, almost exactly the number
of full-time students at this campus.
>> So she gives us a whole bunch of numbers and statistics.
She lets us know where they came from.
She also puts them in a meaningful way, puts them out there in a meaningful way,
the number of students at this campus.
And she will then go on to use this in showing her reasoning for raising the driving age.
Ok. And that brings us to reasoning.
This is drawing conclusions based on the evidence that you present.
Again, just presenting evidence doesn't necessarily mean
that that evidence means what you say it means.
You need to walk your audience through the reasoning or use some type of reasoning
so they can come to the conclusion that you do or you want them to.
Ok, different types of reasoning we'll look at.
We'll look at specific instances or inductive reasoning.
We'll look at reasoning from principle or deductive reasoning.
We'll look at causal reasoning, not casual reasoning.
There is no such thing as casual.
It's causal.
And then we'll look at analogical reasoning.
Ok. Reasoning from specific instances or inductive reasoning.
This is reasoning from particular facts to a general conclusion.
So if I said I parked on campus without a permit and didn't get a ticket,
therefore you can park on campus and not get a ticket.
Now we might be sitting there thinking I don't think so.
That's not going to work.
But reasoning from specific instances to a general conclusion, that's how this works.
However, in order to avoid the argument of no, you're wrong, we need to do things
like avoid hasty generalizations.
Just because it happened once doesn't necessarily mean it's going
to happen every single time.
Qualify your argument when necessary, and by putting the correct qualifiers on it,
it makes the statement much more believable and much more useful.
And then reinforce it with, reinforce the argument
with statistics and testimony if you can.
So going back to that previous example, if I said I parked on campus one time
without a permit and didn't get a ticket, well, that's not really usable.
But if I said I parked on campus one time without a permit between semesters
and didn't get a ticket, now that qualifier,
between semesters, makes it much more believable.
I can back it up further and say and I talked to the chief of police on campus
and they said they don't give tickets between semesters.
So if I say therefore you can park between semesters without a permit and not get a ticket,
it makes it much more believable.
So qualify it and back it up with other things.
Reasoning from principles is a little bit different.
It's a general principle to a specific conclusion.
Now with this you want to start with a major premise that everyone will believe.
All people are mortal.
This is something that everyone can buy into, although if you're sitting there thinking no,
I'm immortal, that's a different conversation for a different class.
But the major premise here, all people are mortal, is something that people will believe.
And then you've got a minor premise, Socrates is a person, that would need to be proven.
So if you can prove that Socrates is a person and all people are mortal,
then we can come to the conclusion that Socrates is mortal.
So all people are mortal.
Socrates is a person.
See, I have a picture.
I have a doctor's note.
I have Socrates here that I'm going to walk up here in front of class.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
And so when you're using deductive reasoning, use a major premise the listeners will accept,
provide evidence for that minor premise, and then they have to believe the conclusion.
If they don't believe the conclusion for that,
then they didn't believe either the major or the minor premise.
Ok. Causal reasoning establishes a relationship between cause and effect.
Because that patch of ice was there, I fell and broke my arm.
I have some challenges with this particular example, but the idea there is
that because of one thing then another.
So when you're using causal reasoning, make sure you avoid the fallacy of false cause.
Just because one thing happens after another doesn't necessarily mean that it caused it.
And don't assume events have only one cause.
And this is when we start to get into the scientific method where you start
to use controls and independent variables and dependent variables and all of that stuff.
But I'll leave that for your science class.
But when we're talking about causal reasoning, we want to make sure that the thing
that we're saying causes another thing actually causes another thing.
So we want to look at the evidence for that.
And we want to know the difference between causation,
that is where one thing causes another.
Correlation which is two things happen; they might be related
but they don't necessarily cause each other because sometimes correlation can mean
that two things have a similar or the same cause.
So the example here from Freakonomics if you've seen that documentary or read that book,
at one point doctors believed that, what was the disease?
Was it childhood leukemia?
Nope, I'm sorry, polio was caused by eating ice cream.
Yeah, if you eat ice cream you get polio.
No, it was, the real reason was the heat causes polio and the heat caused people
to eat ice cream, so it wasn't that ice cream was causing polio, it was the increased heat.
So causation, correlation.
And then sometimes things just happen and it's a coincidence.
They don't necessarily happen because of each other,
and they don't necessarily have the same cause.
So causation, correlation, and coincidence.
Know the difference and don't present one as the other.
Ok. Analogical reasoning.
That's comparing two similar cases and you're saying that what is true
for the first is also true for the second.
Got to be careful, though.
We want, we need to make sure that the cases are essentially alike.
So if you say if you're a good surfer you'll be a great snowboarder, I'm sure surfers
and snowboarders out there might be raising an eyebrow at that.
But if we look in, I would probably change this to say
if you're a great surfer, you'll be a good snowboarder.
I would reverse those adjectives there.
And the reason I can say this is maybe because you're, both of them are on a board,
the muscle memory might be similar there, but when you're using analogical reasoning,
make sure that you don't compare apples and oranges.
Ok, so next time we'll focus on Part 2, fallacies and pathos.
So we'll take a little bit of a break and we'll come back and finish up the chapter.
Thank you.