Preparing to persuade reasoning and logic
1 / 11

Preparing to Persuade: Reasoning and Logic - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Updated On :

Preparing to Persuade: Reasoning and Logic. Aristotle’s “Proofs”. “ logos ” to describe logical evidence “ ethos ” to describe speaker credibility “ pathos ” to refer to emotion. Types of Reasoning : Inductive Reasoning. Draw specific inferences from broad facts.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Preparing to Persuade: Reasoning and Logic' - andrew

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Aristotle s proofs l.jpg
Aristotle’s “Proofs”

“logos” to describe logical evidence

“ethos” to describe speaker credibility

“pathos” to refer to emotion.

Types of reasoning inductive reasoning l.jpg
Types of Reasoning:Inductive Reasoning

  • Draw specific inferences from broad facts.

  • Use inductive reasoning to explain why a current suggestion would or would not work, based on past experiences.

Types of reasoning inductive reasoning4 l.jpg
Types of Reasoning:Inductive Reasoning

  • Any research supporting assertions should have clear credibility.

  • Examples should be clearly representative of the claim.

  • Evidence should directly support the claim.

  • Assertions should not be trite or made hastily.

Types of reasoning deductive reasoning l.jpg
Types of Reasoning:Deductive Reasoning

  • Works opposite from inductive reasoning in that we use broad facts to make specific assertions.

  • Starts with a major premise, which is generally accepted knowledge.

  • Major premise leads to a more specific assertion—the minor premise.

  • Finally, a conclusion is drawn between the two.

Types of reasoning deductive reasoning6 l.jpg
Types of Reasoning:Deductive Reasoning

  • The major premise must have viability. If it is questionable, a fallacy could be created.

  • The minor premises should share a relationship with major premises.

  • If the major premise is questionable, further credible support will be required.

Types of reasoning causal reasoning l.jpg
Types of Reasoning:Causal Reasoning

Causal reasoning relies on a cause-

effect relationship. Some causal

relationships are commonly

accepted . . . :


If I exercise regularly, I will lose weight.

. . . while others stir controversy:


Playing violent videogames promotes violence in children.

Types of reasoning causal reasoning8 l.jpg
Types of Reasoning:Causal Reasoning

  • Simplistic answers should be avoided. Just because one event occurs does not necessarily mean that a relationship between the two can be established.

  • If the cause-effect relationship seems unlikely or is commonly protested, numerous credible sources will be needed to gain consideration.

  • Most effects can have several causes. For example, in the example about losing weight, a person may have exercised, consumed fewer calories, and limited carbohydrate intake—all factors in weight reduction.

Types of reasoning analogical reasoning l.jpg
Types of Reasoning:Analogical Reasoning

Analogical reasoning involves the assumption that because

two things contain commonalities or are interrelated, they

share a likeness or a similar result.


  • “Because my mother had breast cancer, I’d better get checked for it, too.

  • “Since Ford Explorer has faulty tires, your Ford Focus might have them, as well.”

Types of reasoning analogical reasoning10 l.jpg
Types of Reasoning:Analogical Reasoning

In analogical reasoning:

  • The main consideration in analogical reasoning is ensuring that both premises are similar to each other.

  • One premise should not minimize the other.

Fallacies l.jpg

  • Straw man fallacy

  • The either-or fallacy

  • The bandwagon

  • The slippery slope

  • The red herring

  • Ad hominem argument

  • Post-hoc fallacy

  • Non-sequitur fallacy

  • Hasty generalizations