The document discusses the concept of logos, or logical appeals, in persuasive speaking. It defines logos as using reasoning and argument to persuade an audience. It explains Aristotle's three artistic proofs of persuasion - logos, ethos, and pathos. The document goes on to describe the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion, inductive vs deductive reasoning, the elements of an argument, different types of arguments including sign, example, analogy, and causation, and common fallacies in reasoning.

1. PERSUASIVE
SPEAKING - LOGOS
Chapter 13

2. Review – Ch 14
 Goals & Propositions
 Organizational Frameworks for speech

3. III. Nature of Persuasion
IV. Elaboration Likelihood Model
V. Logos
VI. Ethos
VII. Pathos

4. III. Nature of Persuasion
 What is Persuasion?
 Text: Goal is to influence audience attitudes,
beliefs, values and / or behaviors

5. Aristotle – Proof
 Inartistic Proof  Artistic Proof
 Research  Logos
 Facts  Ethos
 Statistics  Pathos
 Examples

6. III. Artistic Proof
 Logos
 Reasoning / Argument (speech)
 Ethos
 Credibility (speaker)
 Pathos
 Emotional appeal (audience)

7. IV. Processing Persuasion (ELM)
 How do we respond to persuasive messages?
 Do we think it through?
 Do we go with our feelings?

8. Reading
 “UFO cults and Us”

9. IV. Elaboration Likelihood Model
 Petty & Cacioppo
 What is the “Likelihood” that people will
evaluate information in an “Elaborate” way?
 What increases the chance people will use
critical thinking?

10. ELM – Two routes
 Central route  Peripheral route

11. V. Logos
 Two types of Reasoning:
 Inductive
 Deductive

12. Inductive Reasoning
 Sherlock Holmes
 House, MD
 CSI

13. Deductive Reasoning
 Major Premise: Generally accepted idea
 minor premise: Specific example of this idea
 Conclusion: Proposition / claim
 MP, mp, C

14. Deductive Reasoning
 Major Premise: My niece likes pink (idea)
 minor premise: This doll is pink (example)
 Conclusion: She will like this doll
 MP or mp is often implied, not stated

15. Deductive Reasoning
 Major premise: (Worldview)
 American citizens have the right to free speech
 Minor premise: (Specific instance)
 Person A, a U.S. citizen, says controversial things
 Conclusion:
 Person A has this right

16. Deductive Reasoning
 Major premise: (Worldview)
 American citizens have the right to free speech
 Minor premise: (Specific instance)
 Person B, a U.S. citizen, says controversial things
of a different sort
 Conclusion:
 Person B should be locked up (?)

17. Elements of Argument (Toulmin)
 Claim
 Support (Data)
 Warrant

18. Types of Argument
 You can argue from…
 Sign
 Example
 Analogy
 Causation

19. Arguing from sign
 Claim: It is going to rain
 Support: I observe dark clouds
 Warrant: Accepted idea that dark clouds are a
sign of rain

20. Arguing from sign
 Example from UFO reading:
 Using political parties to draw conclusions about
positions on an issue

21. Arguing from sign
 Tests
 Do signs generally indicate conclusion?
 Are there contradictory signs?

22. Arguing from Example
 Claim: It is going to rain
 Support: On three different dates in the past
few months, similar weather patterns have
produced rain
 Warrant: What is true in many cases will be
true in this case

23. Arguing from Example
 Tests
 Enough examples
 Typical examples
 Negative (opposing) examples

24. Arguing from Analogy
 Claim: School “A” should have XYZ policy
 Support: School “B” has success with XYZ
policy
 Warrant: Since “A” and “B” are similar in many
ways, they will also be similar here.

25. Arguing from Analogy
 Tests
 Are examples similar enough?
 “Apples and Oranges”

26. Arguing from Cause
 Claim: Home sales will increase
 Support: Mortgage interest rates have dropped
 Warrant: Lower interest rates are understood
to lead to higher home sales

27. Arguing from Cause
 Tests
 Are events along sufficient to cause 2nd event?
 Are there other factors?

28. Fallacies
 Errors in reasoning
 Hasty generalization
 False cause (post hoc, ergo propter hoc)
 Either – Or (False dilemma)
 Straw man
 Ad hominem