Being persuasive

Neil McLean
Teaching and Learning Centre

Overview of session

Being persuasive
Persuasion in academic writing
Planning writing to be persuasive
Peer marking task

Task
From your courses, choose a topic you
know something about.
What is a predictable question you would
have to answer?
Write this question at the top of an A4
piece of paper

Being persuasive
Persuasion as manipulation
Persuasion as argument
Aristotelean Rhetoric
Academic and professional writing

Conclusions
Persuasion need not be about
manipulation
Making an argument that is persuasive is
a way of evaluating and understanding
ideas
Key elements in a persuasive argument
are ethos, pathos and logos

Conclusions
A classic rhetoric for academic argument
that meets these criteria is
Thesis say what you think
Justification say why
Support say how you know youre right

Persuasion and manipulation

Persuasion and flattery

Rhetoric versus reality

Persuasion as argument

Coursework at university is based on the

development of understanding through
writing and the demonstration of this
understanding through persuasion

Thought and language

The Sapir Whorf
hypothesis
That language and thought interact, with thought
directing language, but also language shaping
thought.

thought
language

Aristotelean rhetoric
Examine general
truths / beliefs
(endoxa) through;
dialectic
a dialogue led by tutor questions
and building on previous
answers the basis for seminar
teaching

rhetoric
argument (enthymeme) building a defensible argument
in response to a problem /
choice the basis for university
coursework

Aristotelean rhetoric
Ethos spirit of the message
(credibility of message and sender)
Pathos empathy / appeal to
interest(s)
Logos internal logic / flow

Persuasion is about style and

delivery as well as words chosen

Knowing a good argument is the

basis of being critical

Persuasion in academia
Ethos

(credibility)

Form of argument balanced and informed

Writers voice / perspective indirect,
detailed and specific
Recourse to appropriate sources / detailed
examples and cases
Disciplinary / formal language

Persuasion in academia
Pathos (effect on your reader)
Address what is of interest to the reader
Originality of thought, comparison or
expression
Reference to key questions / debates /
questions showing wider understanding
Clarity and completeness of argument
New information / analysis relevant to the
readers interests

Persuasion in academia
Logos (logic and flow)
Answer the question
Structure and form of the argument
Clarity of basic plan + specificity of
support for the points made
Flow of argument (narrative + links)

Task
Read the following two climate
change letters
Which is more persuasive?
Why?

Consensus does not equal truth

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dd6bf27c-c817-11de-8ba8-00144feab49a.html
Published: November 3 2009 02:00
From Mr Robert Gentle.
Sir, Your editorial Follow the science of climate change (November 2) falls into the classic
trap of equating consensus with truth - if enough scientists say that man is driving global
warming, then it must be true.
Consensus scientific opinion once held that the earth was flat, blood didn't circulate in the
body, heavier-than-air flight was impossible, an atomic bomb was absurd and a rocket could
never escape the earth's atmosphere. Science isn't about consensus, which is the business of
politics. Science is about verifiable results that can be reproduced until a sound theory
emerges that best fits the facts.
Climate science is so new a field that even the proponents of man-made global warming can't
explain exactly what is happening, or why the past 10 years have been far cooler than their
computer models predicted they should be, despite record emissions of CO 2 over the period.
You admit that climate change is complex and that future climate is intrinsically
unpredictable, yet you still make a case for investing hundreds of billions of dollars to insure
against the possible destruction of industrial civilisation! You quote Harvard economist
Martin Weitzman to back it up, as if that means anything. It's like someone in the 18th
century quoting Thomas Malthus, the political economist and demographer, to support the
consensus view at that time that the world was running out of food and heading for mass
famine.
A cursory look at the big scare stories of the past 40 years - global cooling, the energy crisis,
the population timebomb, the hole in the ozone layer and so on - illustrates just how wrong
consensus scientific opinion often is, especially when it's allied with politics. Even if manmade global warming is as serious as you make it out to be, history suggests that it will
almost certainly be invalidated by the normal technological paradigm shifts that mark the
evolution of mankind.
Climate Armageddon? I, for one, am not losing any sleep over it.
Robert Gentle,
Johannesburg, South Africa
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009.

Absolute truth is not claimed in the realm of science

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/946d3e82-c9ac-11de-a071-00144feabdc0.html

Published: November 5 2009 02:00

From Mr Tony Welsh.
Sir, Robert Gentle (Letters, November 3) misleads when he says that climate science is a new
field. John Tyndall is credited with having proved that the atmosphere produces a greenhouse
effect in the 1850s. Even prior to that it was widely believed to be the case; ie, there was
consensus. Climate change was first brought to the attention of a US president (LBJ) in 1965
and has been a mainstream concern since the 1970s. That is not to say that everything is
perfectly understood, but most of the uncertainty concerns the detail effects of climate change
on particular regions of the world rather than the macro effect on the average temperature of
the earth's surface.
Nor is it true that the last 10 years have been cooler than expected. 2005 was the hottest year
on record, while every year since 2001 is in the top 10. This is in spite of the fact that various
other factors diminishing sunspot activity and the Southern Oscillation between El Nio
and La Nia ocean currents have tended to make the earth cooler than it would otherwise
have been.
Mr Gentle also misleads when he says consensus scientific opinion once held that the earth
was flat, and so on. If science is defined by adherence to the scientific method, for example as
propounded by Karl Popper, I dont think there was ever a time when scientists believed any
of the propositions listed. Consensus certainly does not guarantee truth, but consensus among
informed individuals must surely be taken seriously. Absolute truth is in any case not claimed
anywhere in the realm of science. The best one can say about any scientific theory is that it
leads to a number of potentially falsifiable predictions and is yet to be proved wrong.
Tony Welsh,
Houston, TX, US
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009.

Analysis
Ethos
How does each author define science? Who seems more
authoritative?
Who appears to know more about the history of climate science?

Pathos
Who appeals to common sense over the latest scientific
research results?
Who has more divisive and absolute language? Is this more
suggestive of technical texts or mass media reporting?

Logos
Who argues that if it isnt 100% proven, we shouldnt worry?
Who argues that a consensus among informed experts is worth
taking seriously?

Essay writing workshop

A game called essay
Show you can think
Answer the question

Show youve read books

Position your answer within the literature,
referencing

Show expertise
Specific and detailed additional knowledge,
disciplinary terms and register

Planning writing to be persuasive

Start with the question what constitutes
an answer?
What is your answer?
How can you explain / support this
answer?

Example question
The common law has long held omissions
liability to be exceptional, but there are now so
many exceptions to this principle that it would be
appropriate to abandon the bias against
omissions, and to allow an omission to constitute
the actus reus of any criminal offence. Discuss.
Omission = not doing something
Actus reus = physical commission of an offence

Analyse the question

Discuss agree or disagree / show you

have chosen between both sides

Analysing the question

The common law has long held omissions
liability to be exceptional
Is this true?
Why is this?
Is this a good idea?

Analysing the question

but there are now so many exceptions to
this principle that it would be appropriate
to abandon the bias against omissions
Is this true?
If so, why? (+ does this change the
fundamental reason for the approach?)
If not, why not?

Analysing the question

and to allow an omission to constitute the
actus reus of any criminal offence.
Is this a logical conclusion, based on your
earlier critique?
Would this work?
Would this serve the purposes of the common
law?

Task
Look at your question
What are the key terms?
What wider debate does this relate to?
From the examiners perspective, what should
a good student be able to do that this
question tests?

Answer the question

Probably not yes or no, more mainly
yes, but type answer
Social science answers tend to choose
between existing explanations / theories

Task
Look at your question, which competing
theories relate to answering this question?
Which theory / combination of theories
offer the most reasonable explanation?
What limitations are there to the different
theories / explanations

Organising the flow

Answer
Overall, what seems a reasonable position to
take?

Qualification
How is your / any answer limited / contingent?

Reasoning
Despite this, why are you answering the
question as you are?

Example question
The common law has long held omissions
liability to be exceptional, but there are now so
many exceptions to this principle that it would be
appropriate to abandon the bias against
omissions, and to allow an omission to constitute
the actus reus of any criminal offence. Discuss.
Omission = not doing something
Actus reus = physical commission of an offence

Flow of answer
Answer
No, omissions liability should remain exceptional

Qualification
It is true, some acts of omission should constitute
offences (and they do through existing law)

Reasoning
However, making omissions the actus reus of an
offence is unnecessary and unworkable
Its unnecessary as the number of exceptions is
simply not that great
Its unworkable as it would contravene the basic
principle of free will

Task
Look at you question and answer and plan
the flow
Answer
Qualification
Reasoning

Writing the spine of the essay

A good piece of academic writing has a
spine of argument that runs through it,
normally in the first sentence of each
paragraph
This sentence states the idea that the rest
of the paragraph demonstrates
Paragraphs tend to have one main idea

Task
Imagine you are going to write your essay in 45
minutes
This most likely means youll have 6 - 800 words
At around 100 words per paragraph + an intro
and conclusion, this suggests around 6 main
ideas
Look at your basic plan and write 6 sentences
for the main ideas of your answer. Leave
spaces between them

Task
Read your sentences, imagine they are a
narrative in their own right
Do you have both (at least) sides of the
argument represented?
Do your sentences combine to make one
logical narrative?

Persuasion
A classic rhetoric for academic argument
that meets these criteria is
Thesis say what you think
Justification say why
Support say how you know youre right

Task
You have your thesis in place as the spine
of the essay. This should mean youll win
the show you can think part of the game
called essay
Now note down how you will justify and
support your thesis statements in order to
win the who youve read and show
expertise parts of the game

Writing an introduction
Context (why is the question important?)
Thesis (whats your answer?)
Argument (what are you going to argue?
the order should match the paragraph
structure)

Task
You will have 20 minutes to write half of
your essay, starting with your introduction
After this, well analyse your writing

Analysis
Ethos (credibility)
Formality of writing, balanced view, reference
to academic sources (be an insider)

Pathos (empathy / interest)

Address key questions of the discipline / wider
debates, new non-textbook info?

Logos (flow of ideas)

Answer the question, structure of the answer,
justification of this answer, clarity on concepts

Conclusions
Being persuasive is a useful measure of
the arguments youre making
Being persuasive takes perspective and
aptitude
Perspective requires reading and thought,
aptitude requires thought and practice