Question

Persuasive strategy Identify your primary audience (hypothetical or real). Describe the audicnce and identify important characteristics relevant to your persuasive speech topic-position. Is the audience likely to agree or disagree with your position? Is the primary audience sympathetic/supportive, neutral, or hostile/opposed to your position? Explain why you audience is sympathetic/supportive, neutral, or hostile/opposed believe the hat is your persuasive goal (strengthening commitment/weakening commitment, inducing action)? What are you trying to change about the audience? Are you trying to get the audience to do something? Identify the claim. What you are trying to prove or support? What's your central position? This should be one very clear and direct sentence Identify the grounds. Evidence? What support do you have for the claim? Identify the warrant. What is the connection between the claim and evidence? Explain why/how each piece of evidence supports your claim? Identify gualifiers. How strong is your argument: Certainly, possibly, always, usually, sometimes? Identify the rebuttal. How would an opponent respond to /counter attack your argument?

I need a persuasive strategy on the topic Organ donors that include the following Argument map. which is claim, grounds, warrant, qualifies, rebuttal and reservations. please number it. thanks

Answer 1

ARGUMENT MAPPING

1. MAKE A CLAIM Fact: claims which focus on empirically verifiable phenomena Judgment/value: claims involving opinions, attitudes, and subjective evaluations of things Policy: claims advocating courses of action that should be undertaken

2. SUPPORT THE CLAIM Evidence: facts, statistics, reports, or physical proof, Source Credibility: authorities, experts, celebrity endorsers, a close friend, or someone's say-so Analysis and Reasoning: reasons may be offered as proof.

3. WARRANT : STRENGTH OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CLAIM AND ITS SUPPORT B A C K I N G EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT.

WARRANT QUALIFIER : THE AMOUNT OF FORCE OR PROBABILITY THE SPEAKER ATTACHES TO THE CLAIM, HOW SURE THE SPEAKER IS THAT THE CLAIM IS TRUE REBUTTAL: THE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS STATING WHEN THE CLAIM WOULD OR WOULDN'T BE TRUE TOULMIN'S MODEL OF ARGUMENT.

Examples: 1. Claim: Smoking causes cancer. Support: My dad smokes and he got cancer. Warrant: how strong is the connection between one person’s dad smoking and getting cancer and the claim that smoking causes cancer? How do we establish causation? What does “smoking” mean? What does “cancer” mean? Does smoking tobacco relate to all kinds of cancer? Is one case enough to draw conclusions or do we need a rebuttal? The speaker sounds pretty sure of the claim on rather flimsy evidence. Should the claim be qualified such as “heavy smoking may cause lung or throat cancer”? 2. Claim: Exposure to violent tv programming increases the propensity for violent behavior. Support: children who watched 10 hours of violent cartoons (Tom and Jerry) exhibited more violent tendencies than children who watched 10 hours of nonviolent cartoons (Barney). Is this claim warranted? It depends on the definition of “children” (some ages are more aggressive than others regardless of tv exposure), violent tendencies (what are they, how does one measure them, how do we know that some children aren’t naturally more violent than others or that violence is a learned behavior). Should there be qualifiers and/or a rebuttal added to the claim? Communication scholars have long been interested in the use of evidence for persuasion. (Claim) McCroskey (1969), for example, cites Aristotle as an early rhetorician who nearly 3000 years ago advocated the use of evidence in persuasive messages. (Support) Science as a whole adopts evidence as one of its central conditions for the assertion of truth claims (Anderson, 2004). (Additional support) Most simply stated, claims must be supported with some form of evidence (Toulmin, 1958). The form of evidence most likely to result in attitudinal or behavioral change (persuasion) is a topic of some controversy among communication scholars. (Rebuttal) In fact, to this day, it is unclear whether statistical evidence or testimonial evidence is more effective in decreasing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in risky sexual behaviors.