Persuasion: Logic and Rhetoric 1: Overview

by Rob Ouwehand, from sources listed below.

1. The Basic Tools of Persuasion:

a. There are three things to consider when you want to persuade: the speaker, the
listener, and the content.

i. the content - your topic, your techniques, your organization, and how you
support your ideas are important...yet they are not the only thing. Other factors in
trying to persuade someone:
ii. the speaker - how you speak, and how you move, send non-verbal messages.
You must prove to the audience that they ought to listen to you. You can do that
with credentials (I studied this for my Ph.D) or through character (Iʼm a father who
wants a good life for my daughter), or through history (I learned about this
because it happened to my family), as well as through speaking confidently and
smoothly.
iii. the listener - you must match the way you speak to the person who is listening.
You must choose persuasive techniques, and speak in a way, that is appropriate
for your audience. (for example, you would use different methods and
vocabulary to convince housewives to recycle, than you would use to convince a
group of scholars, or a classroom of children.) Think about your audienceʼs age,
social class, education, life experience, culture, and expectations.

b. Methods of persuasion: according to Aristotle, the three main methods of

persuasion are appealing to logic, appealing to ethics, appealing to emotions. These
three methods can be used together: speeches using only one are rare.
i. Logos (Logic) - using reason (if, then, but, therefore) to show that my ideas are
believable - we will look more carefully at logic later.

ii. Ethos (Ethics) - appealing to your own authority, your character, or the
audienceʼs character can convince an audience to believe or trust you.
1. if you are an expert in the field you are talking about
2. if you are closely connected to the topic (for example, a lung cancer survivor
talking about quitting smoking)
3. if your logic is so impressive that you appear knowledgeable to your audience
4. if you appeal to your audienceʼs ethics or character, or your societyʼs values:
“If you love your country, you should. . .” “Every moral person should. . .” It is
extremely effective if you can show your audience that you understand them
and share their values. Family, patriotism, justice, freedom, education,
diligence, progress, compassion and democracy are examples.

iii. Pathos (Emotions) - appeals to the audienceʼs emotions. This technique works
well combined with the other techniques. A touching story, or a strong image can
stir peopleʼs emotions. A passionate speaker can stir up emotions just with the
way they speak.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/resource/588/04/
Gorrell, Donna. The Little, Brown Workbook. New York: Pearson and Longman, 2007, pages 128-131.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Rhetorical_Analysis
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/01/
http://www.mrgunnar.net/ap.cfm?subpage=347030
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion
Persuasion: Logic and Rhetoric 2: Rhetoric
compiled by Rob Ouwehand
2. Rhetorical Techniques: These are techniques that some speakers and writers use to
try and influence their audience. These techniques are useful, and you should be ready
and able to use them, but they are also dangerous: they can be used to support false, or
incorrect claims. Knowing these techniques will help you notice when others are using
them to influence peopleʼs opinions.
a. Stories (I want to tell you about my brother-in-law...), analogies (a language is like a
tree: grammar and vocabulary are the roots, listening and reading are the trunk, and
speaking and writing are the leaves and fruit!), metaphors (We are all on a road
together. A road called life...)
i. in these techniques, using specific details helps the audience create a mental
image
ii. using sensory details (smell, taste, touch, etc.) help your audience as well
b. Rapport: building a relationship or connection with the audience.
i. one way to build rapport with the audience is to show you share common
interests
ii. another way to build rapport is to share some personal details, so they feel like
they know you
iii. another way to build rapport is to be funny, or charming. Some even flatter their
audience
c. Claim authority: explain why you are an expert in the topic. (Sometimes it is worth
investigating these kinds of claims of authority: some speakers are frauds!)
d. Use emotionally powerful words: words like “hope” “evil” “undemocratic” “children”
e. Pacing and repetition can also create an emotional effect in your audience.
f. Using questions so that the audience thinks THEY are coming up with the answers.
i. substituting a question for a request makes your request seem less pushy.
“Could I borrow some money” is nicer than “Lend me some money. Now!”
ii. asking a question makes your audience open, and more likely to accept the
answer you suggest, than if you just make a statement.
1. “How can we fix this problem?...(pause)...With better government
regulations!” -- better than “We can fix this problem with better government
regulations.”
iii. a skillful speaker can hide the answer they want in the question they are asking.
“How should the government and society help single parents?” (the question
suggests the answer: the government should help single parents)

It is helpful to become familiar with these techniques: once you are aware of them, you will
notice that people use them all the time to persuade others. There is nothing wrong with
these techniques, in fact, theyʼre very useful. However, sometimes once you can identify
these techniques, you notice that some speakers have few, or no actual ideas beneath
their rhetoric. (We call this “empty words” or “empty rhetoric”.) Clever speakers
sometimes use these techniques as substitutes for ideas. They say nothing at all, but they
say it beautifully. However, when these techniques are paired with strong, well-supported
ideas, they can be very powerful in communicating your message.

Next time we will look at logic, and also at some common errors in logic.
Persuasion: Logic and Rhetoric 3: Logic
3. Logic: A logical debate must establish the burden of proof: to have an outcome, one
side must prove their points, while the other side simply has to disprove the other.
Proving my points is harder than taking apart another personʼs argument, so trying to
show that the other side has the burden of proof is a common strategy.
a. Logic is made up of premises and conclusions
i. a premise is a fact that we agree on. Often it is something we have observed.
a. if all birds lay eggs
b. and a parrot is a bird
2. a conclusion is something we try to prove by showing that the premises point
towards the conclusion.
a. then a parrot lays eggs.
ii. Reasoning is using our intelligence to form strong connections between pieces
of information. According to Aristotle, there are two main kinds of reasoning.
1. deductive reasoning - uses general truths to lead to a specific conclusion. It
moves from general to specific.
a. If humans are mortal (premise 1)
b. and Socrates is a human (premise 2)
c. then Socrates is mortal. (this conclusion is more specific than the
premises)
2. inductive reasoning - uses specific observations to form a general
conclusion. Science gathers evidence, and suggests a conclusion (called a
hypothesis) that explains the evidence. More evidence is gathered, to test
the hypothesis, and change it if necessary.
a. if parrots have feathers and lay eggs
b. and robins have feathers and lay eggs
c. and magpies have feathers and lay eggs
d. then we can be pretty sure that parrots, robins, and magpies all belong to
the same class of animal.
b. To disprove someoneʼs claim when they are using logic, try these strategies:
i. Question their sources.
1. are they using their sources properly, and accurately representing what their
sources are trying to say?
2. are their sources authoritative, or not?
ii. Question their reasoning
1. do the conclusions clearly follow from the premises, or are some of the
connections weak?
2. is the speaker assuming some things are true without proving them? can
those premises be questioned?
3. is the speaker using any logical fallacies? (we will look at logical fallacies
later)
4. could other conclusions also be drawn from the same premises?
iii. Question the speaker
1. is the speaker qualified to speak as an authority on the subject?
2. does the speaker have any personal reasons why he/she might prefer the
conclusion s/he has made over other options? (Is he/she biased?)
iv.Question the techniques
1. has the speaker used clever rhetoric to strengthen weak ideas?
c. Next class, we will look at some rhetorical techniques that can manipulate an
audience, and hide weak reasoning behind clever language.
compiled by Rob Ouwehand
Persuasion: Logic & Rhetoric 4: Cheap Rhetorical Tricks
4. A cheap trick is an illegitimate way to get what you want. Often it involves some kind of
dishonesty or cheating. There are a number of cheap rhetorical tricks that unfairly
manipulate your audience, focusing on the speaker, on emotions, or on group feelings.
a. Speaker - using the speakerʼs image instead of strong arguments
i. unqualified authority, or false authorities - giving something more authority
than it deserves
1. “Scholars everywhere agree...” (which scholars? can you give names? which
books should I read? Have they been peer-reviewed?)
2. “Everyone on the internet is saying...” (internet commenters are not reliable)
3. “Tom says mothers of newborns shouldnʼt shower, and he has a Ph.D.” (but
his Ph.D is in math, not pediatric medicine)
ii. appeal to force - using power instead of reason to show you are right
1. “Iʼm stronger than you, so listen to me or Iʼll hit you.” “Might makes right.”
2. “Our countryʼs more powerful, so we donʼt care what you say.”
3. “Follow the golden rule: the one who has the gold makes the rules.”
iii. face value - asking people to believe you just because.
1. “Look at my face. Would I lie to you? Do I seem like a liar?”
2. “Just trust me on this point.” (Why should I?)
b. Emotions - manipulates positive or negative emotions to influence our thoughts
i. flattery - complimenting the audience (usually insincere) to get what you want
1. “You are a smart audience, so Iʼm sure you realize that Iʼm right.”
ii. supremacy - feeling better than others
1. “People who agree with me are generally smarter, and better looking, than
those who disagree.”
2. “Join Somang Church, Koreaʼs most influential church.”
iii. appeal to fear or pity - these two emotions are powerful motivators.
1. “If we do what he says, the terrorists will win!”
2. “If that happens, this poor little orphan girl will be sent out to the street.”
c. Group feelings - manipulates our belonging, or wanting to belong to groups
i. us vs. them or in-group vs. out-group - do you want to belong to the group?
1. “A loyal Korean wouldnʼt want this law to pass!”
2. “All these problems started when those foreigners came into town!”
ii. bandwagon appeal - donʼt you want to be like everyone else?
1. “These days, EVERYBODY thinks these are the best accessories to buy!”
2. “Donʼt be the only one who DOESNʼT have your own Prada handbag.”
iii. ad populum: appeal to the people: appealing to popular values or emotions
instead of reason and logic and evidence
1. “If you love Christmas, you should vote for me!”
2. “Buy this car. Itʼs the right thing for your family.”
iv.snob appeal: making it seem like smarter, more cultured, or more refined people
agree with you.
1. 90% of the people who live in Kangnam use this product.
2. “Itʼs a wine for true connoisseurs.” “Itʼs an acquired taste.”
Extra: absolute certainty: be wary of anyone who is 100% sure about something. They
are at risk of being biased or using faulty reasoning to support a conclusion they have
already made. They are in danger of forming conclusions without enough evidence, or
making their arguments appear stronger than they really are. Theyʼre also stubborn and
difficult to talk with, because anyone who believes he/sheʼs totally correct is probably not a
very good listener. Similarly, be cautious of anyone who uses words like “all, always,
none, never, completely” in their logical reasoning.
Persuasion: Logic & Rhetoric: Day 5: Logical Fallacies
5. There are several ways of using logic improperly to confuse, mislead, or manipulate
your audience. Oversimplifications, distractions, and distortions are three types.
a. Oversimplifications try to make the issue simpler than it really is
i. the double-bind or the false choice - presents a choice that isnʼt really a choice:
1. Will you give me your wallet, or do you want me to beat you up and take it?
ii. contingency - pretends that two things are connected, when they really arenʼt
“Vote for Lee Myung-bak, or youʼre a communist!”
iii. black-or-white fallacy - makes it seem like there are only two answers to a
complicated question. “If youʼre really my friend, you have to lend me $1000.”
iv.argument from ignorance - if you canʼt prove itʼs true, it must be false. “We
donʼt know for sure how it happened, so it must be a miracle.”
v. sweeping generalization (jump to a conclusion) - draws a conclusion without
enough evidence to really support it. “I ate at a Chinese restaurant once, and it
was greasy, therefore I know all Chinese food is greasy and unhealthy.”
vi.slippery slope: assumes consequences will follow that might not actually follow.
b. Distractions argue about other things, instead of actually looking at the issues
i. the genetic fallacy - looks at somethingʼs origin instead looking at it carefully.
“The Volkswagen Jetta is an evil car because Hitler founded the Volkswagen
company.” “I used to be a smoker, so I know about lung disease.”
ii. ad hominem - attacks the speaker instead of the argument. “Are you going to
do what an alcoholic asks you to do?”
iii. shifting the burden of proof - burden of proof asks which side must prove their
point to win. Trying to assign the burden of proof to the other side might be a
good strategy, but it might be a distraction.
iv.ignoring the issue - gives an answer that is not connected to the question at all.
v. missing the point - focuses on an issue that is related, but isnʼt the main issue.
vi.red herring - brings in some irrelevant detail that does not actually change the
argument.
c. Distortions twist words, sources, or logic, to confuse or mislead instead of clarifying
i. twisting the meanings of words - uses a word with vague, or multiple
meanings in a dishonest way.
ii. misrepresenting sources - twists words or meanings, or manipulates what a
source says by selectively quoting it, in order to make the source seem like it
supports me, even though it actually doesnʼt. Often done with statistics.
iii. post hoc - assumes that if B comes after A, B must have been caused by A. “I
watched a movie last night, and today Iʼm sick. The movie made me sick.”
iv.false analogy - says two things are similar when actually they are not. “A childʼs
mind is like a sponge.” (A childʼs mind is for washing dishes?)
v. straw man/straw opponent - give an inaccurate summary of your opponentʼs
view (one that is easier to disprove), and then prove it is wrong.
vi.begging the question (circular reasoning)- treat an opinion (which needs to be
proven) as if it is a fact: “I know she loves me because sheʼs crazy about me!”
vii.non sequitur (latin for ʻit does not followʼ) implies a logical relation between two
things that arenʼt actually connected. “If there is a sale, I must go shopping.”
viii.complex question (loaded question): a question that assumes things.
1. Have you stopped using steroids? is actually two questions:
a. Have you been using steroids? + Have you stopped?
b. the complex/loaded question assumes the answer to the first question
without asking it.
For more, look here: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html