Final Exam Flashcards
Overview of a Speech:
1 Analyze Audience
2 Select Topic
3 Determine Purpose
4 Compose Thesis
5 Develop Main points
6 Intro, Body, Conclusion- structure and separate
7 Outline the Speech: Coordination and Subordination- organizing by their relative importance/ relationship
8 Consider Presentation Aids
9 Practice Delivering the Speech (time/ video/ audience)
Mandatory components of Outline:
Topic- clearly stated
General Purpose (Commemorative Speech)
Specific Purpose (topic/ purpose)
Thesis Statement (should be mirrored / tied in to your conclusion
Coordination/ Subordination Organization:
I. Intro
II. Body
A. Point #1
1.
(transition- reference when we brought him as a puppy
2.
B. Point #2
1.
2.
C. Point #3
III. Conclusion
Transition statements noted between each component
Logos
Appeals to Reason - example: “Should college tuition be free?” Audience looks to
you for evidence and reasons.
Pathos
Appeals to Emotions- Vivid Imagery, Shared Values; Repetition and parallelism,
stirs emotion, inspiring, has rhythm and build. Example Winston Churchill “Fight on the
Beaches “ to British House of Commons
Ethos
Appeal to character- Ethical character (Aristotle) ; Establish authority as a
speaker and person. Competence, moral character, goodwill
Motivation
Targeting audience members’ motives, Maslow’s Hierarchy, aligns with
pathos
Mental Engagement
aligns with logos
Demonstrate Credibility
aligns with ethos, Initial credibility is important, often captured in
an introduction or bio introducing a speaker, body language/ confidence important
Structure of Persuasive Speeches
- Claim (Proposition) Asserts what you intend to prove (analogous to thesis)
- Evidence- Substantiates the claim (body)
- Warrant - Reasons / justifications Logical line of reasoning connecting why the evidence
supports the claim
Claims of Value
Issues of judgment. Examples: Is assisted suicide ethical?, Is the rare
painting really worth $100 million?, Is something right or wrong…worthy or unworthy?
Claims of Policy
Recommends course of action/ approval. Examples: legislation “This
should happen, this ought to happen”
Claims of Fact
Focus on whether something is true/ false or will/ won’t happen. Either
two competing answers or no answer as of yet (speculative claim) Examples: global
warming (two competing beliefs) or use of drones to deliver groceries (speculative)
Motivational Warrant
Reasons targeted at listener’s needs. (Pathos) Claim: Donate to
hunger relief agency , evidence- statistics on how much price of 1 coffee can do to feed
the hungry, warrant- You don’t want to allow children to starve, so donating the price of
one coffee can fight hunger with impact
Authoritative Warrant
Relies on credibility and source of evidence. Ethos and Logos. Success
counts on listener regarding authority figure as credible and sourced. Example- Reform
Alliance with parole founded by Jayz
Substantive Warrant
Listener’s faith in the factual evidence as justification (logos) Claim-
Stronger hurricanes linked to climate change. Hurricanes and tropical storms get their
energy from warmer water. Casual reasoning- hurricanes’ strength. Reason by analogy-
this happened in a similar, well - analogized scenario so it is likely to happen in this
scenario.
Monroe’s Motivated Sequence
- Attention
- Need- issue to be addressed
- Satisfaction- solution, offering a proposal, change attitudes or beliefs
- Visualization- anticipated outcomes of the solution, understanding the benefit
- Action- asks audience to accept the message, reconsider their present way of thinking,
commit more fully to their belief, and/ or change their behavior
Herbert Simmons- Persuasion scholar
4 types of audience- how to manage counter for credibility
Hostile - Raise the counter - focus on those the audience is most likely to disagree with and win
support
Critical/ Conflicted- address counters and refute them, introduce evidence
Sympathetic- If time permits, briefly address only the most important counters
Uninformed/ less interested/ apathetic- Briefly raise and refute only key, mainstream
counters
Logical Fallacies
Begging the Question
Stated in a way as if it must be true, yet no evidence
Logical Fallacies
Ad Hominem Argument
targets a person rather than the position/ issue
Logical Fallacies
Bandwagoning
General opinion posed as basis for truth.
Logical Fallacies
Either-Or-Fallacy
Setting up false dichotomy
Logical Fallacies
Red Herring
introduces irrelevance as diversion
Logical Fallacies
Hasty Generalization
uses isolated instance to draw a larger conclusion
Logical Fallacies
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Suggest causal relationship just to due to order of occurrence
Logical Fallacies
Faulty Analogy
claiming two phenomena are alike when not similar enough
Logical Fallacies
Non Sequitir
“Does not follow” Conclusion is not valid
Logical Fallacies
Slippery Slope
Faulty assumption that 1 case will lead to series of events
Logical Fallacies
Appeal to Tradition
bases acceptance on historical fact/ occurrence “always been this
way”
