Week 12 · Chapter

Chapter 12 — Persuasive Speaking & the Rhetorical Appeals

Public Speaking Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~40–50 minutes · Objective 7 (compose and deliver an informative speech that teaches without an agenda and a persuasive speech that moves an audience ethically using the three appeals (ethos, pathos, logos), sound reasoning (inductive, deductive, causal, analogical; claim, evidence, warrant), and an awareness of the common logical fallacies, on a topic from the pinned non-partisan roster), Objective 4 (organize a speech in a pattern that fits its purpose (chronological, spatial, topical, causal, problem–solution, Monroe's Motivated Sequence), build an introduction and a conclusion that do their jobs, and produce a preparation outline and a speaking outline that follow coordination, subordination, division, and parallelism and use transitions, signposts, internal previews, and internal summaries) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slide deck, the tutorial, the quiz, and the Speech Workshop all build on it.

In plain language

This week your speech stops teaching and starts asking, and persuasion (moving what people think, value, or do, with honest reasons they can weigh) becomes the term's second headline speech. You learn the three kinds of question a persuasive speech can answer. You learn the three appeals (the kinds of reason a listener says yes to): trust in the speaker, a feeling that fits the facts, and evidence. You build the speech in five steps that end in one honest request. And you learn where persuasion ends and manipulation (moving people by going around their judgment) begins.

Why you already care about this

At a tenant meeting in an apartment building, about 20 residents sit in the lobby on a rainy evening. 2 of them ask for the same thing: covered bike parking by the side door. The first one reads a list of reasons in a flat voice and sits down. The second one says she rides to work every day. She describes the rusted chain she replaced after 1 wet month. She cites the building's own count: 9 bikes chained to the stair railing on a weekday morning. Then she asks the room to sign one letter to the landlord before they leave. The scene is illustrative and attributed to no one.

Most hands go up for the second speaker. She did not shout, and she did not trick anyone. She gave the room a reason to trust her, a reason to care, and a reason to believe. Then she asked for one honest thing, sized to what she could prove.

That is persuasion, and you already do it when you ask a manager for a schedule change or talk a friend into a study group. This chapter gives the move a shape you can practice. It also gives you a line you will not cross.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

tell persuasion from manipulation, and sort a persuasive claim by the kind of question it answers;
name the three appeals and tell apart a reason to trust, a reason to care, and a reason to believe;
read a verified fragment of a real speech for the appeal it reaches for, without judging whether you agree;
build a persuasive speech as Monroe's Motivated Sequence in five steps and shift its emphasis for an agreeing, a neutral, or an opposed audience;
check a persuasive draft, including a chatbot's, against the four honest moves and the four manipulation moves.

Carry this line with you: persuade through their judgment — never around it.

Where we are

Already covered: Weeks 1 to 11 built every part of a speech and then put them together as an informative speech that teaches without taking a side.
This week: persuasion and manipulation, the three persuasive questions, the three appeals, real fragments read for craft, Monroe's Motivated Sequence built in full, the target audience, and persuasion ethics.
How they connect: the running speech keeps its evidence and its outline skills, and turns from teaching how plate waste is handled to asking the campus to measure before it decides.
Where we're going next: Week 13 looks under the hood of an argument, with four types of reasoning, Toulmin's model, and the fallacies that only look sound.

Here is what each earlier week hands you now. Week 1 set honesty as a speaker's first duty and named the National Communication Association's Credo for Ethical Communication. Week 2 taught you to read an audience and to name common ground out loud, and this week that move opens a speech to listeners who disagree. Week 3 drew the first line between the general purposes in four words: inform teaches; persuade moves. Week 4 gave you three real sources and their oral citations, and they become your evidence. Week 5 named Monroe's Motivated Sequence as one of six patterns, and this week you build one. Week 7 read the Kennedy and Roosevelt fragments for their devices, and this week you read the same words for their appeals. Week 11 built the informative version of the running speech.

1. Persuasion versus manipulation: what a persuasive speech asks

Think about a coworker who wants the team to switch to a shared calendar. One way is to show the team two missed meetings from last month and offer a one-week trial. Another way is to say "everyone else already switched" and "the old system will crash any day now," with nothing behind either line. Both might work. Only one treats the team as people who can think.

The course draws the line this way.

Persuasion is moving what an audience thinks, values, or does, or strengthening a view it already holds, through honest appeals and reasons the audience can weigh and reject.
Manipulation is an attempt to move an audience that goes around its judgment instead of through it, such as by inventing evidence, inflating fear, hiding counter-evidence, or rushing a decision.

Notice the last words of the first definition: weigh and reject. A persuasive speaker hands the audience reasons it could turn down. A manipulator makes sure it never gets the chance.

A persuasive speech is a speech whose job is to move an audience's beliefs, values, or actions, or to strengthen a view it already holds, with evidence and reasons it can check. Strengthening counts. A speech to people who already agree can still persuade them to show up, sign up, or stay with it.

Three kinds of question

Every persuasive speech answers a question, and the kind of question shapes the whole speech. This course sorts them three ways, drawing on the argumentation and debate tradition.

A question of fact is a persuasive question about whether something is true or false, such as whether a crossing has a walk signal; evidence can settle it.
A question of value is a persuasive question about whether something is good, right, fair, or better than an alternative; the speaker must name the standard used to judge it.
A question of policy is a persuasive question about what should be done, usually marked by the word "should", such as whether a dining hall should run an audit before a change.

Honesty note: some treatments add questions of definition as a fourth kind, so this course teaches the count in words and keys only the sort.

Worked example — three claims, three questions. The first two claims are illustrative and attributed to no one; the third is the running speech's new claim.

"The crossing near the campus's north gate has no walk signal." It asks whether something is true. You can settle it with a site visit. That is a question of fact.
"A hands-on first-aid workshop is a better use of an orientation hour than a campus tour." It asks whether something is good or right. So you must name your standard for "better", such as which hour leaves new students able to do something they could not do before. That is a question of value.
"Our campus dining hall should run a two-week plate-waste audit before deciding whether to remove trays." The word "should" marks a request for action. That is a question of policy.

The tally is 3 claims, 1 for each of the 3 question types. In words: the question type tells you what your speech must prove, a fact with evidence, a value with a standard, or a policy with a plan.

The running speech turns persuasive

Last week the running speech taught. Its specific purpose began "To inform", and a listener on either side of the tray question would have felt fairly treated. This week it asks. Its new specific purpose is: "To persuade my audience that our campus dining hall should run a two-week plate-waste audit before deciding whether to remove trays." It starts "To persuade", and it holds one idea. The audit claim also comes from the course's persuasive-topic roster: substantive and arguable questions at campus and community scale, such as covered bike parking, a later campus shuttle, or a community garden on a vacant lot.

Misconception check. Students often think any speech that mentions a problem is persuasive, or that a persuasive speech can be any hot topic in the news. Both are tempting, because both feel bold. But an informative speech can describe a problem without asking for anything, and a persuasive speech is defined by its ask, not its subject. And a live partisan question turns a craft exercise into a verdict the course will not give. The cure: check the specific purpose for "To persuade" and an ask, and choose your claim from the roster or from the plain value beneath a public question.

Memory hook: fact needs evidence; value needs a standard; policy needs a plan.

2. Three appeals: reasons to trust, to care, and to believe

Picture two people asking you to try a new route to work. Your neighbor, who drives it every day, says it saves her time. A stranger with a billboard says the same thing. Same claim, different trust. Now picture a third person who shows you a map with the two routes timed side by side. Different again. You weigh a request three ways: who is asking, how it makes you feel, and what the evidence shows.

Those three ways are old. Aristotle's Rhetoric, Book I, in the W. Rhys Roberts translation, says "Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds". In that passage the first kind depends "on the personal character of the speaker". The second depends "on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind". The third depends "on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself".

The course calls these the appeals: the three kinds of proof a persuasive speaker offers, which this course names ethos, pathos, and logos after the modes of persuasion in Aristotle's Rhetoric. The course's list is three. Do not add a fourth.

Ethos is the appeal to the audience's trust in the speaker, built from the speaker's competence, character, and goodwill as the audience sees them.
- Competence is the part of ethos that shows a speaker knows the subject, such as firsthand work on the problem or careful research said aloud.
- Character is the part of ethos that shows a speaker is honest and trustworthy, such as disclosing a role in the issue or admitting the limits of the evidence.
- Goodwill is the part of ethos that shows a speaker has the audience's interests at heart rather than only the speaker's own.
Pathos is the appeal to the audience's emotions, which is legitimate when the feeling is relevant to the topic and in proportion to the evidence.
Logos is the appeal to evidence and reasoning, such as a cited study or a statistic with its source, which any listener could check for themselves.

Worked example — one move for each appeal. The running speech, its speaker, and the compost-bin scene are illustrative and attributed to no one; the oral citation comes from the course's mini-source set.

Ethos. The speaker spent a semester volunteering on the dining hall's waste audit. That one move shows competence (the speaker has weighed the plates), character (the speaker discloses the role), and goodwill (the speaker wants the decision to work for the diners). Ethos has 3 parts, and this one move touches all 3.
Pathos. "Picture the compost bin at closing, filled to the lid with food that came back on plates." The feeling is relevant, because it is the topic. It is proportionate, because a full bin is a real sight, not a disaster.
Logos. Oral citation 2: "In a study published in the journal Sustainability in December 2022, researchers Wenhao Zhang and Junehee Kwon found that a week without trays in a university dining hall, compared with a week with trays, reduced how much food diners took but did not show a significant reduction in food waste." The best available study did not show the waste drop, so the reason to measure first is evidence, not a feeling.
Count. 1 ethos move + 1 pathos move + 1 logos move = 3 moves, one for each appeal.

In words: the speech gives the room a reason to trust the speaker, a reason to care, and a reason to believe, and each reason is honest.

Telling the appeals apart

Two swaps cause most of the trouble.

Ethos versus pathos is why they should trust you versus what the message makes them feel. "I have weighed these plates for a semester" asks for trust, so it is ethos. "Picture the bin at closing" asks the audience to feel something, so it is pathos.
Ethos versus logos is the speaker's credibility versus the reasoning. The audit volunteering is ethos, because it is about the speaker. Zhang and Kwon's finding is logos, because it is evidence anyone could check, whoever says it.

Try three fresh sorts, each illustrative and attributed to no one. A surgeon who opens with "in my twenty years in the operating room" leans on ethos. An animal shelter that shows one dog waiting by the door leans on pathos. A generator ad that runs the morning after a storm leans on pathos too, and its timing is why it lands.

Misconception check. Students often think ethos and pathos are the same thing because both feel personal, or that a speaker's credentials count as logos because they sound factual. The cure is to ask where the proof lives. If it lives in the speaker, it is ethos. If it lives in the listener's feelings, it is pathos. If it lives in evidence anyone could check, it is logos. A second wrong turn is a speech that is all pathos and no logos: a moving story with no verified evidence behind it. Ask yourself, "where is my verified evidence?"

Reading two real speeches for craft

Week 7 read the Kennedy and Roosevelt fragments for their devices. This week you read the same words for the appeal each one reaches for. The analysis is of how each speech persuades, never of whether you agree. Every fragment below is copied from its pinned transcript.

Worked example — four fragments, four readings. Each reading names the main appeal and its effect on the audience of that day.

Roosevelt's address to Congress (1941): "a date which will live in infamy". It reaches mainly for pathos. For a Congress meeting the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, it named the weight of the day before any request was made.
The same address: "Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands." It reaches mainly for logos. Each sentence adds one more reported attack, so the case builds fact by fact. The repeated "Last night" adds weight a listener feels as well.
Kennedy's inaugural address (1961): "ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country". It reaches mainly for pathos, the listener's sense of shared duty. The library's transcript prints the dash as two hyphens, and the fragment keeps it.
The same address: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." It reaches mainly for ethos. The reversal presents a speaker of steady character, neither fearful nor reckless.

The count is 2 from Roosevelt + 2 from Kennedy = 4 fragments read for craft. Caveat: a fragment can reach for more than one appeal, so each reading names the main one and what it did for the audience of that day. Your reading may differ, as long as you can point to the words that support it.

Pause and reflect. Choose one option and jot two or three sentences.

(a) Pick one of the four fragments and argue that it reaches for a different appeal than the reading above. Point to the exact words that support your reading.

(b) Think of a request someone made to you recently that worked. Which appeal carried it, and how could you tell?

Memory hook: trust the speaker and feel the stakes — then check the proof.

3. Build it in five steps: Monroe's Motivated Sequence

Think about the last time a friend talked you into a road trip. First they got your attention. Then they reminded you how long it had been since you went anywhere. Then they had a plan: the car, the route, the cheap place to stay. Then they made you picture the drive with the windows down. Then they asked: "Are you in?" That is a five-step speech, and it has a name.

Week 5 named Monroe's Motivated Sequence, from Monroe (1935), Principles and Types of Speech, as one of the course's six organizational patterns. This week you build one in full. Its 5 steps run attention, need, satisfaction, visualization, action. The visualization step is the fourth step of Monroe's Motivated Sequence, in which the speaker helps the audience picture the future with the proposal adopted, without it, or both.

Worked example — the running speech in five steps. The speech and its scene are illustrative and attributed to no one; the oral citations come from the mini-source set.

Attention. The closing-time compost bin, described in two sentences.
Need. The campus is deciding on trays with no local measurement. Oral citation 1 sets the size of the problem: "According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Waste FAQ page, which draws on the department's Economic Research Service, between 30 and 40 percent of the food supply in the United States goes to waste."
Satisfaction. A two-week audit, weighed daily, before the decision. That is 2 weeks × 7 days = 14 days of weighing. Oral citation 2 is the reason to measure first.
Visualization. Two futures side by side. In one, the decision rests on the campus's own numbers. In the other, it is copied from another campus.
Action. Sign up for a weighing shift, and email dining services. That makes 2 concrete actions, both honest and both small.

In words: the sequence carries the audience from noticing, to caring, to a plan, to seeing the payoff, to one small thing it can do this week.

Two other shapes

The sequence is not the only persuasive pattern. Two others are widely taught.

Problem–cause–solution is a persuasive pattern with three main parts: it shows that a problem exists, explains what causes it, and proposes a solution that removes the cause. It has 3 parts, so it suits a speech whose audience first needs to know why the problem happens.
Comparative advantages is a persuasive pattern for an audience that already agrees a problem exists; it argues that one solution is better than the alternatives by showing its advantages over each.

That gives you 2 alternatives beside the sequence. Choose the one whose logic fits your audience's question, as Week 5's decision logic taught.

Aim at your target audience

Week 2 taught you to analyze an audience. Persuasion adds one question: where does this audience start on your claim? The target audience is the part of an audience a persuasive speaker most hopes to move, described by where it starts on the claim: agreeing, neutral, or opposed.

An agreeing audience is listeners who already support the speaker's claim; a persuasive speech to them spends less time on the problem and more on a concrete action.
A neutral audience is listeners who have not formed a view on the speaker's claim, often because they know little about it; a persuasive speech to them builds the problem and the plan with care.
An opposed audience is listeners who disagree with the speaker's claim; a persuasive speech to them opens on common ground, answers the strongest counter-argument fairly, and asks for a smaller step.

A counter-argument is the best reason someone could give against a speaker's claim; an ethical persuader names the strongest one fairly and answers it.

Worked example — one speech, three audiences. The audience sketches are illustrative and attributed to no one.

Agreeing: diners who already want the audit. You keep the need step short and spend your time on action: you hand them the sign-up sheet.
Neutral: diners who have not thought about trays. You build your need and satisfaction steps with care: oral citation 1, then your audit plan.
Opposed: diners who want the trays gone now. Open on common ground: everyone in the room wants less waste. Name the strongest counter-argument fairly: "an audit delays the change by two weeks and takes volunteer time." Answer it with oral citation 2. Ask for a smaller step: keep an open mind until the 14 days of numbers are in.

That makes 3 target audiences, and the emphasis shifts for each. In words: the five steps stay, but the time you spend on each one follows where the audience starts.

Misconception check. Students often skip the visualization step. That is tempting, because the plan feels finished once the satisfaction step lays it out. But a plan the audience cannot picture is easy to nod at and forget. The visualization step is the one most often skipped, and it is the one that lets the audience see the payoff. The cure: give the audience one concrete picture of the future, with the plan or without it, before you ask for action. A related mix-up is calling problem–solution and the sequence the same pattern; only the sequence has visualization and action.

Memory hook: notice, need, plan, picture, act — never skip the picture.

4. Keep it honest: persuasion ethics and the four manipulation moves

A good salesperson and a con artist can use the same words. Both tell a story, both name a problem, and both ask for something. The difference is what they do with the truth. That is why persuasion needs ethics more than any other speech.

The National Communication Association's Credo for Ethical Communication was approved in 1999 and states 9 principles. The first advocates truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication. The course names and links the Credo and never reproduces it. From it, the course draws four honest moves for a persuasive speaker:

honest evidence, with every figure verified at its source;
proportionate emotion, sized to the facts;
the strongest counter-argument acknowledged;
an honest ask, a request at the end of a persuasive speech that names exactly what the speaker wants the audience to do, sized to what the evidence supports.

Each honest move has a dark twin. The manipulation moves are four ways a speaker goes around an audience's judgment, which this course names and rejects: fabricated evidence, disproportionate fear, suppressed counter-evidence, and false urgency.

Fabricated evidence is a statistic, study, quotation, or source that does not exist or does not say what the speaker claims, presented to an audience as real.
Disproportionate fear is a manipulation move that stirs more fear than the evidence supports, such as blaming a small problem for a disaster.
Suppressed counter-evidence is a manipulation move that hides evidence against the speaker's claim, such as reporting only the half of a study's finding that helps the speaker's side.
False urgency is a manipulation move that pushes an audience to decide before the facts are in, such as an invented deadline or a warning that it will soon be too late.

Next week you meet false dilemma as a fallacy. This week it shows up only as one form of false urgency: "decide now, or lose everything."

Worked example — the honest checklist on the running speech. The speech is illustrative and attributed to no one.

Honest evidence. Citation 2 is reported whole, both halves: diners took less food, and the study did not show a significant reduction in food waste.
Proportionate emotion. A full compost bin at closing, labelled illustrative. Not a mountain, not a crisis.
Counter-argument acknowledged. The two-week delay, named fairly in the speaker's own words.
Honest ask. A weighing shift and an email. Both are small, and both match what the evidence supports.

That is 4 honest moves, and the speech makes all 4. In words: the speech could survive a listener who checks every line.

Timing and the occasion

Why does the generator ad run the morning after a storm? Because the fear is fresh and the need is easy to picture. The running speech lands best while the campus is still deciding on trays. Timing helps explain why a speech lands, but it is not a fourth appeal; the course's count stays 3. And timing can tip into manipulation. If the ad inflates the next storm into a catastrophe to close the sale, the timing has become disproportionate fear.

Misconception check. Students often think manipulation is persuasion turned up louder, so a little exaggeration is fine if the cause is good. That is tempting, because the goal feels worthy. But persuasion respects the audience's ability to reason, and manipulation takes that away. A worthy goal reached with an invented number still leaves the audience deciding on something false. The cure: run the four honest moves on every draft before you rehearse it.

Pause and reflect. Choose one option and jot two or three sentences.

(a) Describe an ad, a pitch, or a request you have seen that used one of the four manipulation moves. Name the move and say what an honest version would have done instead.

(b) Think about a cause you care about. Which manipulation move would be most tempting for you to use for it, and what honest move would you use instead?

Memory hook: every manipulation move has an honest twin; use the twin.

5. Check the machine: a chatbot's "good statistic"

You will use a chatbot as a rehearsal coach this term. In persuasion it fails in a way that sounds helpful. Ask it for "a good statistic about X," and it often hands back a confident number with an official-sounding group attached and no page behind it.

Worked example — checking a chatbot's draft against the four manipulation moves. The exchange is illustrative and names no product. You ask a chatbot for "a good statistic about trayless dining" for the need step. It returns a draft that does four things:

it says going trayless cuts food waste in half, credited to an official-sounding group with no author, no date, and no page;
it reports Zhang and Kwon's study as "trays make diners take more food" and stops there;
it adds "Our landfill is about to overflow because of trays.";
it closes with "Remove the trays this week, before it is too late."

Check it, one move at a time.

Fabricated evidence. No page behind the "in half" line can be found, and the pinned study did not show a significant waste reduction. So you drop the line and say oral citation 2 instead.
Suppressed counter-evidence. The chatbot kept the half of Zhang and Kwon's finding that helps the trayless side and dropped the half that does not. You restore both halves, so your audience hears the whole finding.
Disproportionate fear. An overflowing landfill blamed on trays is fear out of proportion to the evidence. You keep your labelled illustrative compost-bin scene, which is proportionate.
False urgency. "This week, before it is too late" pushes a decision before the facts are in. You restore the honest ask: sign up for a weighing shift and email dining services.
Count. 1 fabricated statistic + 1 suppressed half + 1 out-of-proportion fear + 1 false deadline = 4, one for each manipulation move.

In words: the chatbot wrote a draft that sounded persuasive, and every one of its shortcuts was a manipulation move.

Then rehearse. Record the persuasive speech twice and self-assess in the shape of the delivery self-assessment table from Week 9. Name one moment to fix in the first take, such as rushing past the visualization step. The table's numbers are illustrative, and none of them is a target. You can practice without a camera, too: an audio recording, or a run-through for a friend who notes one moment to fix, works the same way.

Misconception check. Students often trust a chatbot's statistic because it names an organization. That is tempting, because a name sounds like a source. But a source is a page you can open, with an author or organization, a title, and a date. If you cannot find the page, the statistic is fabricated evidence, however official the name sounds. The cure: verify every figure at its source before you say it aloud, or drop it.

Memory hook: no page, no number — not even a good-sounding one.

Key terms

Persuasion — Moving what an audience thinks, values, or does, or strengthening a view it already holds, through honest appeals and reasons the audience can weigh and reject. (first used: 1. Persuasion versus manipulation: what a persuasive speech asks)
Manipulation — An attempt to move an audience that goes around its judgment instead of through it, such as by inventing evidence, inflating fear, hiding counter-evidence, or rushing a decision. (first used: 1. Persuasion versus manipulation: what a persuasive speech asks)
Persuasive speech — A speech whose job is to move an audience's beliefs, values, or actions, or to strengthen a view it already holds, with evidence and reasons it can check. (first used: 1. Persuasion versus manipulation: what a persuasive speech asks)
Question of fact — A persuasive question about whether something is true or false, such as whether a crossing has a walk signal; evidence can settle it. (first used: 1. Persuasion versus manipulation: what a persuasive speech asks)
Question of value — A persuasive question about whether something is good, right, fair, or better than an alternative; the speaker must name the standard used to judge it. (first used: 1. Persuasion versus manipulation: what a persuasive speech asks)
Question of policy — A persuasive question about what should be done, usually marked by the word "should", such as whether a dining hall should run an audit before a change. (first used: 1. Persuasion versus manipulation: what a persuasive speech asks)
Appeals — The three kinds of proof a persuasive speaker offers, which this course names ethos, pathos, and logos after the modes of persuasion in Aristotle's Rhetoric. (first used: 2. Three appeals: reasons to trust, to care, and to believe)
Ethos — The appeal to the audience's trust in the speaker, built from the speaker's competence, character, and goodwill as the audience sees them. (first used: 2. Three appeals: reasons to trust, to care, and to believe)
Competence — The part of ethos that shows a speaker knows the subject, such as firsthand work on the problem or careful research said aloud. (first used: 2. Three appeals: reasons to trust, to care, and to believe)
Character — The part of ethos that shows a speaker is honest and trustworthy, such as disclosing a role in the issue or admitting the limits of the evidence. (first used: 2. Three appeals: reasons to trust, to care, and to believe)
Goodwill — The part of ethos that shows a speaker has the audience's interests at heart rather than only the speaker's own. (first used: 2. Three appeals: reasons to trust, to care, and to believe)
Pathos — The appeal to the audience's emotions, which is legitimate when the feeling is relevant to the topic and in proportion to the evidence. (first used: 2. Three appeals: reasons to trust, to care, and to believe)
Logos — The appeal to evidence and reasoning, such as a cited study or a statistic with its source, which any listener could check for themselves. (first used: 2. Three appeals: reasons to trust, to care, and to believe)
Visualization step — The fourth step of Monroe's Motivated Sequence, in which the speaker helps the audience picture the future with the proposal adopted, without it, or both. (first used: 3. Build it in five steps: Monroe's Motivated Sequence)
Problem–cause–solution — A persuasive pattern with three main parts: it shows that a problem exists, explains what causes it, and proposes a solution that removes the cause. (first used: 3. Build it in five steps: Monroe's Motivated Sequence)
Comparative advantages — A persuasive pattern for an audience that already agrees a problem exists; it argues that one solution is better than the alternatives by showing its advantages over each. (first used: 3. Build it in five steps: Monroe's Motivated Sequence)
Target audience — The part of an audience a persuasive speaker most hopes to move, described by where it starts on the claim: agreeing, neutral, or opposed. (first used: 3. Build it in five steps: Monroe's Motivated Sequence)
Agreeing audience — Listeners who already support the speaker's claim; a persuasive speech to them spends less time on the problem and more on a concrete action. (first used: 3. Build it in five steps: Monroe's Motivated Sequence)
Neutral audience — Listeners who have not formed a view on the speaker's claim, often because they know little about it; a persuasive speech to them builds the problem and the plan with care. (first used: 3. Build it in five steps: Monroe's Motivated Sequence)
Opposed audience — Listeners who disagree with the speaker's claim; a persuasive speech to them opens on common ground, answers the strongest counter-argument fairly, and asks for a smaller step. (first used: 3. Build it in five steps: Monroe's Motivated Sequence)
Counter-argument — The best reason someone could give against a speaker's claim; an ethical persuader names the strongest one fairly and answers it. (first used: 3. Build it in five steps: Monroe's Motivated Sequence)
Honest ask — A request at the end of a persuasive speech that names exactly what the speaker wants the audience to do, sized to what the evidence supports. (first used: 4. Keep it honest: persuasion ethics and the four manipulation moves)
Manipulation moves — Four ways a speaker goes around an audience's judgment, which this course names and rejects: fabricated evidence, disproportionate fear, suppressed counter-evidence, and false urgency. (first used: 4. Keep it honest: persuasion ethics and the four manipulation moves)
Fabricated evidence — A statistic, study, quotation, or source that does not exist or does not say what the speaker claims, presented to an audience as real. (first used: 4. Keep it honest: persuasion ethics and the four manipulation moves)
Disproportionate fear — A manipulation move that stirs more fear than the evidence supports, such as blaming a small problem for a disaster. (first used: 4. Keep it honest: persuasion ethics and the four manipulation moves)
Suppressed counter-evidence — A manipulation move that hides evidence against the speaker's claim, such as reporting only the half of a study's finding that helps the speaker's side. (first used: 4. Keep it honest: persuasion ethics and the four manipulation moves)
False urgency — A manipulation move that pushes an audience to decide before the facts are in, such as an invented deadline or a warning that it will soon be too late. (first used: 4. Keep it honest: persuasion ethics and the four manipulation moves)

Summary

Persuasion moves people through their judgment; manipulation goes around it.
A persuasive speech answers a question of fact, value, or policy.
Fact needs evidence, value needs a standard, policy needs a plan.
The three appeals: ethos, pathos, logos. The course's list is three.
Ethos lives in the speaker, pathos in the listener's feelings, logos in checkable evidence.
Read a real speech for how it persuades, never for whether you agree.
Monroe's Motivated Sequence: attention, need, satisfaction, visualization, action.
Do not skip the visualization step.
Aim at the target audience: agreeing, neutral, or opposed.
The four honest moves: honest evidence, proportionate emotion, the strongest counter-argument, an honest ask.
The four manipulation moves: fabricated evidence, disproportionate fear, suppressed counter-evidence, false urgency.
Timing helps a speech land, but it is not a fourth appeal.
No page, no number: verify every chatbot statistic at its source.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

A neighborhood group is debating a community garden on a vacant lot. Sort each claim as a question of fact, value, or policy, and say what each one must prove. (a) "The lot gets direct sun for most of the afternoon." (b) "A garden is a better use of the lot than extra parking." (c) "The neighborhood association should ask the owner for a one-season lease."
A youth soccer coach is raising money for new uniforms. Name the appeal each line leans on. (a) "I have coached this league for eight seasons." (b) A photo of a player in a jersey torn at the shoulder. (c) "The league's own fee sheet lists the price of a uniform set, and here is the page."
These five lines come from an illustrative speech asking for a later campus library closing, out of order. Put them in Monroe's order and name each step. (a) "Sign the request at the front desk on your way out." (b) "Raise your hand if you have ever been asked to leave mid-sentence." (c) "Picture finishing a lab report in a quiet room instead of a loud kitchen." (d) "Keep the second floor open two hours later, staffed by student workers." (e) "Right now the building closes before many evening labs let out."
A flyer for a pedestrian crossing says: "This is the most dangerous corner in the state! Sign in the next ten minutes or the crossing will never happen." No source is named. Name the two manipulation moves and write an honest version of the ask.

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

(a) Fact: it asks whether something is true, so it must be proved with evidence, such as a few afternoons of watching the lot. (b) Value: "better" is a judgment, so the speaker must name the standard, such as which use serves more neighbors. (c) Policy: "should" asks for action, so it needs a plan, here the lease request.
(a) Ethos: the proof lives in the speaker, eight seasons of competence. (b) Pathos: the torn jersey asks you to feel something, and it is proportionate because it shows the real problem. (c) Logos: the proof lives in evidence anyone could check, the league's own page.
The order is (b), (e), (d), (c), (a). (b) is attention: it pulls the room in with a shared moment. (e) is need: it names the problem. (d) is satisfaction: it gives the plan. (c) is visualization: it lets listeners picture the payoff. (a) is action: one honest ask.
The first move is fabricated evidence: "most dangerous corner in the state" names no source, so unless the speaker can open a page that says it, the claim is invented (shouted as a scare line, it also tips toward disproportionate fear). The second is false urgency: "the next ten minutes" is an invented deadline that rushes the decision. An honest ask: "If you agree this corner needs a crossing, sign the letter to the city before the next council meeting, and check the crash records I have linked on the back."

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz; next week Toulmin's model maps the running speech's policy claim as claim, evidence, and warrant.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com