Topic 6: Argumentation & persuasion: Part 1 of 2

Argumentation uses clear thinking and logic to convince readers on a controversial issue.

Persuasion is involved if appeals (ethical, logical, emotional) are made in the process.

Argumentation and persuasion are often combined because people react rationally and emotionally to situations.

How argumentation-persuasion fits purpose & audience

Argumentation and persuasion are everywhere, in TV, radio and newspaper advertisements and editorials.

The logical appeal (logos) relies on sound logic with supporting evidence that is unified, specific, sufficient, accurate, and representative.

The emotional appeal (pathos) is directed at the audience's needs, values and attitudes. It usually encourages them to commit to a course of action. Connotative words are the tools of this appeal.

The ethical appeal (ethos) relies on the writer's credibility or reliability. People won't believe you if they think you don't know what your talking about.

Audience analysis helps you to determine the best appeal, or combination of appeals.

Audiences can be categorised as follows:

Supportive audience. If the audience already trusts your credibility and agrees with your position, an emotional appeal can be the primary appeal.

Wavering audience. People who are interested in your argument, but don't necessarily believe you. They may not be as informed on the subject as they should be. Ethos and logos work best here.

Hostile audience. An apathetic, sceptical or hostile audience is obviously the most difficult to convince. Use logos primarily. Avoid pathos.

Strategies for using argumentation-persuasion

1. Identify controversy & define your position

At the beginning of the paper, identify the controversy surrounding the issue and define your position. This allows the reader to know immediately what your position is.

For example, Australia's social security system has been abused over the years. (broad thesis)

No-one except the handicapped and mothers of pre-school-age children should be eligible for benefits.

2. Provide strong support for your thesis.

Supporting evidence must be unfied, specific, sufficient, accurate, and representative. Can be based on personal experience, or from external sources; statistics, facts, examples, expert opinion taken from books, journals, reports, interviews, and documentaries.

If you uncover information that undermines your thesis, don't ignore it, use it to arrive at a more balanced viewpoint.

3. Avoid using a hostile tone

Audience is alienated by hostile or condescending language. `Anyone (with half a brain) can see that ...' or `Its obvious ...'

Also avoid personalising the argument. `My opponents find the law ineffectual' sounds adversarial. `Opponents of the law find it ineffectual' sounds more even-handed.

The even-handed approach helps to establish common ground. This makes you appear fair and reasonable and so believable.

4. Organise the supporting evidence

Emphatic approach. The most important or compelling evidence is saved for last. Has built-in momentum because it starts with the least important and builds to the most significant. People remember best what they experience last.

Simple to complex approach. Proceed from simple concepts first to the most complex last. Gains audience agreement and rapport. It assures them that your argument-persuasion is firmly based in shared experience. Conversely, you risk alienating an audience if you start with difficult technical and/or complex material.

5. Acknowledge and refute differing viewpoints

Good argument-persuausion seeks out differing viewpoints, acknowledges them, perhaps even admits that they have some merit. This strategy strengthens your argument by:

· Anticipating objections,

· Highlights flaws in your own position,

· Making you appear reasonable and thorough.

Three techniques for dealing with dissenting positions:

· Two part proposition that identifies the opposing opinion and states your position, implying that your position stands on more solid ground.

· Use one or two paragraphs to summarise the opposing argument, granting where appropriate the validity of some of its points. Then present the evidence of your own position.

· Refute all or part of the dissenting view by pointing out its flaws.

6. Use induction or deduction to think logically about your argument

Your line of reasoning is a sure indicator of how rigorous you have thought through your position.

Inductive reasoning. Examines specific cases, facts or examples. Based on these specifics, you then draw a conclusion or make a generalisation. Used by scientists, eg. `smoking increases the risk of cancer'. The evidence used must be accurate, recent, and representative if your case is not to be undermined.

Limitations of induction is that there is a significant level of uncertainty. The conclusion can never be more than inference, involving an `inductive leap'. There could be more than one explanation for the evidence cited.

Deductive reasoning. Begins with a generalisation that is then applied to a specific case. This move from the general to the specific involves a three-step process - the syllogism:

Major premise - a general statement about an entire group.

Minor premise - a statement about an individual within that group.

Conclusion - a conclusion about that individual.

For example, `In an accident, bigger cars are safer than smaller cars (major premise). The Ford Falcon is a large car (minor premise). In an accident, the Falcon will be safer than a smaller car (conclusion).

A syllogism is valid if the major premise is not a sweeping generalisation, or the minor premise is not faulty in some way.

7. Use Toulmin logic to establish a strong connection between your evidence and thesis

Whether you use induction or deduction, your argument depends on strong evidence. Stephen Toulmin proposes this approach to strengthen the connection between evidence and thesis:

· Claim. The thesis, proposition or conclusion.

· Data. The evidence (facts, statistics, examples, observations, expert opinion) used to convince the audience.

· Warrant. The underlying assumption that justifies moving from the evidence to the claim.

For example; `The train driver was drunk when the train crashed' (data). Transport workers entrusted with public safety should be tested fro drug use (claim). Transport workers should not be allowed on the job if they use drugs (warrant).

Ask yourself:

· What evidence do I need to convince the audience.

· Is my warrant clear? Should I state it explicitly or implicitly? What backup do I have to justify my warrant?

Would qualifying my claim make my argument more convincing?