{"id":320,"date":"2019-01-16T00:28:30","date_gmt":"2019-01-16T00:28:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-oneonta-communication\/chapter\/11-3-persuasive-reasoning-and-fallacies\/"},"modified":"2020-06-26T15:19:32","modified_gmt":"2020-06-26T15:19:32","slug":"11-3-persuasive-reasoning-and-fallacies","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-oneonta-communication\/chapter\/11-3-persuasive-reasoning-and-fallacies\/","title":{"raw":"10.3 Persuasive Reasoning and Fallacies","rendered":"10.3 Persuasive Reasoning and Fallacies"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

Learning Objectives<\/h3>\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Define inductive, deductive, and causal reasoning.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Evaluate the quality of inductive, deductive, and causal reasoning.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. Identify common fallacies of reasoning.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Persuasive speakers should be concerned with what strengthens and weakens an argument. Earlier we discussed the process of building an argument with claims and evidence and how warrants are the underlying justifications that connect the two. We also discussed the importance of evaluating the strength of a warrant, because strong warrants are usually more persuasive. Knowing different types of reasoning can help you put claims and evidence together in persuasive ways and help you evaluate the quality of arguments that you encounter. Further, being able to identify common fallacies of reasoning can help you be a more critical consumer of persuasive messages.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Reasoning<\/h2>\r\n

    Reasoning refers to the process of making sense of things around us. In order to understand our experiences, draw conclusions from information, and present new ideas, we must use reasoning. We often reason without being aware of it, but becoming more aware of how we think can empower us to be better producers and consumers of communicative messages. The three types of reasoning we will explore are inductive, deductive, and causal.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Inductive Reasoning<\/h2>\r\n

    Inductive reasoning<\/a><\/span> reaches conclusions through the citation of examples and is the most frequently used form of logical reasoning (Walter, 1966). While introductory speakers are initially attracted to inductive reasoning because it seems easy, it can be difficult to employ well. Inductive reasoning, unlike deductive reasoning, doesn\u2019t result in true or false conclusions. Instead, since conclusions are generalized based on observations or examples, conclusions are \u201cmore likely\u201d or \u201cless likely.\u201d Despite the fact that this type of reasoning isn\u2019t definitive, it can still be valid and persuasive.<\/p>\r\n

    Some arguments based on inductive reasoning will be more cogent, or convincing and relevant, than others. For example, inductive reasoning can be weak when claims are made too generally. An argument that fraternities should be abolished from campus because they contribute to underage drinking and do not uphold high academic standards could be countered by providing examples of fraternities that sponsor alcohol education programming for the campus and have members that have excelled academically (Walter, 1966). In this case, one overly general claim is countered by another general claim, and both of them have some merit. It would be more effective to present a series of facts and reasons and then share the conclusion or generalization that you have reached from them.<\/p>\r\n

    You can see inductive reasoning used in the following speech excerpt from President George W. Bush\u2019s address to the nation on the evening of September 11, 2001. Notice how he lists a series of events from the day, which builds to his conclusion that the terrorist attacks failed in their attempt to shake the foundation of America.<\/p>\r\n\r\nToday, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes or in their offices: secretaries, business men and women, military and federal workers, moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge\u2014huge structures collapsing have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong.\r\nA great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.\r\n<\/span>\r\n

    \r\n
    \r\n
    \"11.3.0N\"<\/a>\r\n

    Using inductive reasoning, speakers reach conclusions through the citation of examples.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Claire Sambrook - UM\u2026<\/a> - CC BY-NC 2.0.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    If a speaker is able to provide examples that are concrete, proxemic, and relevant to the audience, as Bush did in this example, audience members are prompted to think of additional examples that connect to their own lives. Inductive reasoning can be useful when an audience disagrees with your proposition. As you present logically connected examples as evidence that build to a conclusion, the audience may be persuaded by your evidence before they realize that the coming conclusion will counter what they previously thought. This also sets up cognitive dissonance, which is a persuasive strategy we will discuss later.<\/p>\r\n

    Reasoning by analogy<\/a><\/span> is a type of inductive reasoning that argues that what is true in one set of circumstances will be true in another (Walter, 1966). Reasoning by analogy has been criticized and questioned by logicians, since two sets of circumstances are never exactly the same. While this is true, our goal when using reasoning by analogy in persuasive speaking is not to create absolutely certain conclusions but to cite cases and supporting evidence that can influence an audience. For example, let\u2019s say you are trying to persuade a university to adopt an alcohol education program by citing the program\u2019s success at other institutions. Since two universities are never exactly the same, the argument can\u2019t be airtight. To better support this argument, you could first show that the program was actually successful using various types of supporting material such as statistics from campus offices and testimony from students and staff. Second, you could show how the cases relate by highlighting similarities in the campus setting, culture, demographics, and previous mission. Since you can\u2019t argue that the schools are similar in all ways, choose to highlight significant similarities. Also, it\u2019s better to acknowledge significant limitations of the analogy and provide additional supporting material to address them than it is to ignore or hide such limitations.<\/p>\r\n

    So how do we evaluate inductive reasoning? When inductive reasoning is used to test scientific arguments, there is rigorous testing and high standards that must be met for a conclusion to be considered valid. Inductive reasoning in persuasive speaking is employed differently. A speaker cannot cite every example that exists to build to a conclusion, so to evaluate inductive reasoning you must examine the examples that are cited in ways other than quantity. First, the examples should be sufficient, meaning that enough are cited to support the conclusion. If not, you risk committing the hasty generalization fallacy. A speaker can expect that the audience will be able to think of some examples as well, so there is no set number on how many examples is sufficient. If the audience is familiar with the topic, then fewer examples are probably sufficient, while more may be needed for unfamiliar topics. A speaker can make his or her use of reasoning by example more powerful by showing that the examples correspond to the average case, which may require additional supporting evidence in the form of statistics. Arguing that teacher salaries should be increased by providing an example of a teacher who works side jobs and pays for his or her own school supplies could be effectively supported by showing that this teacher\u2019s salary corresponds to the national average (Walter, 1966).<\/p>\r\n

    Second, the examples should be typical, meaning they weren\u2019t cherry-picked to match the point being argued. A speaker who argues to defund the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) because the organization supports art that is \u201cpornographic and offensive\u201d may cite five examples of grants given for projects that caused such controversy. Failing to mention that these examples were pulled from the more than 128,000 grants issued by the NEA would be an inappropriate use of inductive reasoning since the examples aren\u2019t sufficient or typical enough to warrant the argument. Another way to support inductive arguments is to show that the examples are a fair sample, meaning they are representative of the larger whole. Arguing that college athletes shouldn\u2019t receive scholarships because they do not have the scholastic merit of other students and have less academic achievement could be supported by sharing several examples. But if those examples were not representative, then they are biased, and the reasoning faulty. A speaker would need to show that the athletes used in the example are representative, in terms of their race, gender, sport, and background, of the population of athletes at the university.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Deductive Reasoning<\/h2>\r\n

    Deductive reasoning<\/a><\/span> derives specifics from what is already known. It was the preferred form of reasoning used by ancient rhetoricians like Aristotle to make logical arguments (Cooper & Nothstine, 1996). A syllogism is an example of deductive reasoning that is commonly used when teaching logic. A syllogism<\/a><\/span> is an example of deductive reasoning in which a conclusion is supported by major and minor premises. The conclusion of a valid argument can be deduced from the major and minor premises. A commonly used example of a syllogism is \u201cAll humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Socrates is mortal.\u201d In this case, the conclusion, \u201cSocrates is mortal,\u201d is derived from the major premise, \u201cAll humans are mortal,\u201d and the minor premise, \u201cSocrates is a human.\u201d In some cases, the major and minor premises of a syllogism may be taken for granted as true. In the previous example, the major premise is presumed true because we have no knowledge of an immortal person to disprove the statement. The minor premise is presumed true because Socrates looks and acts like other individuals we know to be human. Detectives or scientists using such logic would want to test their conclusion. We could test our conclusion by stabbing Socrates to see if he dies, but since the logic of the syllogism is sound, it may be better to cut Socrates a break and deem the argument valid. Since most arguments are more sophisticated than the previous example, speakers need to support their premises with research and evidence to establish their validity before deducing their conclusion.<\/p>\r\n

    A syllogism can lead to incorrect conclusions if one of the premises isn\u2019t true, as in the following example:<\/p>\r\n\r\n