7
Thursday, Chapter December 20, 2007 11:06 AM
Chapter 7 Notes Rhetorical Proof: Is established through interaction between the speaker and the listeners; provides support for a conclusion but not assurance that it is true. This allows the listeners to have confidence that the conclusion is correct. Rhetorical proof is a good way to justify claims. Statistics can be used as a proof. Reasonable Proof: Would be inferred be most people when exercising their critical judgment. Generally proof is what is considered by people to be reasonable. Components of proof: Claim: A statement that you want the audience to accept; it is what you are trying to prove. Supporting Material: to prove your claim you must show evidence that supports it. Reasoning: It is what links a claim and the supporting material together so that listeners can if the evidence does support the claim. Inference: A mental leap from supporting material to the claim. The most common reasoning pattern on public speaking is inference form examples. Examples: Specific instances used to illustrate a more general claim. Representative: Typical of the larger category from which the case is selected. Three considerations in selecting examples: Individual vs. Aggregate Examples. Factual vs. Hypothetical Examples. Brief vs. Extended Examples. Ask yourself these questions when using inference from example to support your claim: Are there enough examples? Do the examples represent the whole category? Are the example Ambiguous? Are the examples fallacious? Fallacy: An inference that appears to be sound but that, on inspection, contains a significant flaw. Fallacy of composition: Assuming that what is true of the part is true of the whole. Fallacy of division: Assuming that what is true of the whole is automatically true of the part. Guidelines for Reasoning through Example: Limit the numbers of examples. Make sure that each example is believable. Avoid obvious overused examples. Match the details of examples to your purpose. Make the examples memorable. Analogy: A comparison of people, places, things, events or more abstract relationships. Literal Analogy: A direct comparison of objects, people, or places.
Figurative Analogy: A comparison of the relationships between objects, people, or events. Tests for inference from analogy: Are there basic differences as well as similarities. Do the differences outweigh the similarities? Guidelines for Reasoning through Analogy: Avoid analogies that are trite or farfetched. Analyze what it is you are comparing. Use analogies sparingly. Sign: Something that stands for something else. Types of inferences that are from signs: Physical Observation: Regarding something that can be observed as a sign of something that cannot. Statistical Index: A Statistical measure that is taken as a sign of an abstraction. Institutional Regularity: A sign relationship that results from nor or social convention. Casual Inference: A pattern of inference that suggests that one factor about brings another. Types of Inferences: Prediction: explains a change by predicting what leads to what. Assignment of Responsibility: to explain why an event occurred. Explanation: explain something that otherwise didn't make sense. Steps to a Goal: when we know our goals and want to determine the best way to attain them. Tests for inference from cause: Has the sign relationship been confused with a casual relationship? Does some common cause of both factors make it seem that they have a CauseEffect relationship? Common Cause Fallacy: Assuming that one thing causes another when if fact a third factor really is the true cause of both. Does the fact that one event occurred after another falsely signify a cause effect relationship. Post hoc Fallacy: Assuming that, because one event occurred before another, the first is necessarily the cause of the second. Have important multiple causes or multiple effects been over looked? Is there a likely alternative cause? Types if Inference from Testimony: Expert vs. Lay Testimony: Expert Testimony: Testimony from a person who is generally recognized as an authority on a particular subject. Lay Testimony: Testimony from a person who is not an expert. Quoted vs. Paraphrased Testimony. Tests for inference from Testimony: Does the statement accurately reflect the sources view? Is the force an expert on the topic? Is there a basis for the sources statement? Pontificate: To offer judgments without providing any basic for them. Is the source reasonably unbiased?
Is the testimony up to date? Guidelines for reasoning through testimony: Be sure you have quoted or paraphrased accurately. Usually, draw on multiple sources of testimony. State the credentials of your source. Your own ethos affects the credibility of testimony you cite. This final category of inference, called narrative, comes into play when a speaker tells a story. A story is often more powerful that other ways of developing an idea. Tests for inference from narrative: Is the narrative coherent? Is the narrative plausible? Are characteristics consistent? Does the narrative have resonance? Resonance: The qualities of striking a responsive chord with listeners, causing them to identify with what one is saying. Six general test of inference: Does the claim follow from the supporting material? Non Sequitur: A claim that, on its face, is unrelated to the supporting material. Does the claim advance out understanding beyond the supporting material? Circular Argument: Only restating the claim in slightly different words, rather than supporting the claim. Is the claim relevant to the issue? Ignoring the Question: making an inference that diverts attention from the issue at hand. Is the language clear and unequivocal? Equivocal: having multipul meanings. Has probability been clearly distinguished from certainty? Is the speaker's emotional response appropriate to the situation?
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Chapter%207%20Notes.docx>