Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Ministry Agriculture Russian Federation

FGOU VPO "Kemerovo State Agricultural Institute"

Department of "Economics and management at the enterprise"

Test

On the topic: Argumentation of persuasion

Completed:

3rd year student (V semester) ZO

Faculty of Economics

Shumikhina Yu.A.

Kemerovo 2011

INTRODUCTION

2. ARGUMENTATION AS A RATIONAL - LOGICAL PART OF BELIEF

3. METHOD OF ARGUMENTATION AND PERSPECTIVE OF THE INTERLOCTOR

6. EFFICIENCY OF ARGUMENTATION

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

Argumentation is a logical and communicative process aimed at substantiating the position of one person for the purpose of its subsequent understanding and acceptance by another person. Argumentation is one of the many possibilities of speech influence on human consciousness. Indeed, when they try to win over to their side, it is far from always that they resort to logically coherent arguments: sometimes it is enough just to make it clear that the position in favor of which they advocate lies in the interests of the addressee; defending these interests, one can still influence emotions, play on feelings of duty, on moral principles. Argumentation is one of the possible tactics for implementing the idea. She demands professional knowledge and general erudition, concentration, endurance, decisiveness and correctness. At the same time, we are largely dependent on the interlocutor. After all, it is up to him, in the end, to decide whether he accepts our arguments or not.

In addition, argumentation is often called such a speech or an episode of it, which in appearance resembles argumentation as a tactic, but in essence is not aimed at real persuasion and defense of one's point of view. After all, it is possible, putting forward arguments in the presence of someone, not at all to count on influencing someone's consciousness, but simply to think aloud “in front of witnesses”; or, say, putting forward arguments in favor of one or another position.

In many cases, for example, at a lecture, in an essay, in scientific work, in a report, during a debate, in court hearings, at the defense of a dissertation, and in many others, one has to prove, justify the judgments made, that is, apply the argument.

The theory of proof and refutation is modern conditions a means of forming scientifically based beliefs. In science, scientists have to prove a variety of judgments, for example, a judgment about what existed before our era, to what period do objects found during archaeological excavations, about the atmosphere of planets solar system, about the stars and galaxies of the Universe, about the theorems of mathematics, about the direction of the development of computers, about the implementation of long-term weather forecasts, about the mysteries of the oceans and space. All these judgments must be scientifically sound.

A noticeable interest in the problems of argumentation arose in connection with the wide deployment of democratization processes. public life in our country. This created favorable conditions for a mutual exchange of views between representatives of various parties, blocs and movements.

So in this control work I want to outline all possible tactics of persuasion, methods of argumentation, show how you can defend your position, how you need to be able to convince opponents and listeners, how to give weighty arguments in favor of your statements and put forward counterarguments against opponents.

1. FROM THE HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF ARGUMENTATION

For a long time, the problems of argumentation, the skill of persuasion and discussion were almost completely not developed in our logical-methodological, psychological and philosophical literature. This was largely hampered by the established dogmatic and commentary style in humanities which was imposed from above and prevented the free discussion of new urgent problems and familiarization with the intellectual values accumulated by world culture.

Among these values undoubtedly belongs the art of argumentation and persuasion, which reached its peak in ancient Greece. The developed political life in the Greek city-states, the struggle of different parties for influence on the minds and hearts of their fellow citizens, the democratic spirit that prevailed in all public forums - all this could not but contribute to the improvement of the skill of public speech. The ancient Greeks first thought about such fundamental questions: why does one speech convince and another not? Why do we agree with one and object to the other? From the answers to them, not only ancient rhetoric arose, but also the dialectic of Socrates and the logic of Aristotle.

Beginning with the ancient Greeks, two trends can be clearly seen in the development of rhetoric as an art of persuasion. One of them is related to the method of dialogue practiced by Socrates and developed in detail in Plato's dialogues, brilliant in form and deep in content. Currently, this method is called the Socratic method of setting systematic questions and analyzing the answers received for the joint search for truth and clarifying and agreeing on their positions on the issue under discussion.

Another trend that has become traditional in classical rhetoric is associated with the name of Aristotle and the content of his work Rhetoric. In it, rhetoric is seen as a teaching that contributes to “finding possible ways of persuading about each given subject,” while “every other science can teach and convince only about what belongs to its field.” This goal is achieved by applying logical reasoning to "non-technical", in the words of Aristotle, means of persuasion, to which he refers to facts, eyewitness accounts, written contracts, oaths, and even testimony obtained under torture.

Despite the fact that Aristotle remained the highest authority in the field of rhetoric for ancient Rome, nevertheless, the Romans contributed a lot of valuable and worthy attention to this science and especially the practice of oratory. First of all, their merit lies in the development of methods for composing speeches, the analysis of those arguments, or arguments that Stagirite called non-technical, and the improvement of the style and beauty of speech. Here, the Roman orators are followers of the tradition that arose in the writings of Aristotle's student Theophrastus, rather than of his own. They believed that his "Rhetoric", despite its undeniable merits, is better suited for analyzing ready-made speeches than for compiling them. Therefore, for Roman rhetoricians and orators, the manual “On the Syllable” written by Theophrastus, which has not come down to us, was much more important, in which, relying on the principles of his teacher, he summarized the vast experience accumulated by his predecessors in the field of style and speech delivery. Roman judicial orators greatly improved the so-called non-technical means of argumentation associated with the use of evidence, testimony, contracts, agreements, and especially the rules of law. It is well known that Roman law, which was being intensively developed, stimulated interest in questions of argumentation and persuasion, and the reference to legal laws became indisputable evidence in court speeches. Roman judicial orators were attracted by the scheme of reducing all the diverse cases and motives to a single system of complex and branched types and varieties - the so-called statuses. The foundations of such a system were developed in the middle of the 2nd century BC. Hermagorus, considered a transitional figure from Hellenistic to Roman rhetoric. Roman orators also abandoned the Aristotelian division of premises simply into general and particular. Instead, they began to characterize them as categories of a certain kind, such as cause and effect, actual and possible, and so on. Thanks to this, they were able to make a finer distinction between the premises, rather in terms of their quality than quantity, or volume (general and particular judgments).

Under the influence of Hermagoras, Roman judicial orators began to use in their speeches prepared forms, or structures, of arguments or arguments that could be used in future speeches. However, later Cicero and Quintillian opposed such dogmatic schemes, rightly emphasizing that the invention and finding of suitable arguments and reasoning schemes is a creative process and requires a wide and free education.

The departure from the ancient tradition in rhetoric, although it was indicated in later Roman rhetoric, nevertheless, it was not expressed in an explicit and even more sharp form. Therefore, this stage in the development of rhetoric can be characterized as a transitional one from antiquity to the Middle Ages, when faith took the place of persuasion, which, according to the Church Fathers, should have replaced all previously created means of persuasion.

The ancient tradition in rhetoric, which, as we have seen, was formed under the influence of the works of Plato and Aristotle, is characterized by an organic combination of logical-philosophical, emotional-psychological and moral principles of persuasion. However, in the later period, there is a gradual departure from this tradition, which was expressed in the switching of interest from the study of general theoretical problems to the development of the style of speeches, the search for special rhetorical figures, methods of making speeches, the use of various means to decorate them, etc.

On the other hand, in the Middle Ages, faith was more and more advanced in place of persuasion. So, for example, Augustine the Blessed in his book on Christianity, although he admits the possibility of borrowing some principles of Cicero's pagan rhetoric, insists that the persuasiveness of the speeches of a Christian preacher depends more on his moral purity and faith than on eloquence. Therefore, he strongly recommends that speakers adopt a simple style, which should be based “on the firm authority and natural eloquence of Holy Scripture”

How independent direction research theory of argumentation began to take shape in the 40s of our century. Its emergence, however, was prepared by a long history of the development of those means and methods of persuasion that began to be used even within the framework of rhetoric, especially ancient logic and dialectics. A significant impetus to the emergence of the doctrine of argumentation as a special direction in the logic and methodology of scientific knowledge received under the influence of those studies that were undertaken in the field of analysis of the processes of scientific discovery.

On the other hand, the transformation of logic into a purely formal science, the emergence of symbolic or mathematical logic, the attempt to apply its methods even where they are ineffective, contributed to the search for new means and methods of reasoning, especially in the humanities. And this could not but put forward the question of the nature of logic as a whole, the possibility of applying its concepts, theories and methods to evaluate real reasoning and the arguments given in their defense. Therefore, the first direction of research in creating the doctrine of argumentation went along the line of searching for adequate logical means and methods of persuasion. It was not so much about putting forward new types of inferences, but about their application to real cases arguments that are not reduced only to the formal process of deduction and induction, but necessarily include an analysis of those arguments, arguments or premises on the basis of which a reliable or probabilistic conclusion is made.

2. ARGUMENTATION AS A RATIONAL-LOGICAL PART OF BELIEF

argumentation logical communicative

Turning to a detailed discussion of the nature of argumentation, it should be emphasized that it is a specific form communication activities, inseparably and organically connected with the process of persuasion. Therefore, the argument should be considered primarily from the point of view of the activity approach. According to this approach, in any process of argumentation it is necessary to distinguish, firstly, the subject of argumentation, i.e. a person or a group of persons trying to influence other people and convince them of the truth or at least the validity of their statements, assumptions and decisions; secondly, the object or addressee of the argument to whom it is intended; thirdly, the scheme or structure of activity, which includes the purpose of the argument and possible ways of its implementation; fourthly, the means, methods and techniques of influencing the object of argumentation, with the help of which the audience is convinced and agrees with the statements, theses or decisions put forward. The communicative approach emphasizes, first and foremost, the activity of the subject, focused on changing the views, opinions and beliefs of other people. In the field of cognition and spiritual activity, the argumentation is aimed precisely at the restructuring of consciousness, changing the ideas, concepts and judgments of people. When making decisions in practical activities, the argumentation is focused on such a change in the views and judgments of people that can induce them to commit certain actions, deeds or behavior. The ultimate goal of the subject or argumentator is to achieve agreement or acceptance by the object or respondent (audience of listeners, readers, viewers or individuals) not only of the statements, theses or decisions put forward, but also of those arguments or arguments that support them, confirm or justify it one way or another. Indeed, persuasion can be considered achieved if the audience agrees or accepts the arguments. This process of interaction between the argumentator and the respondent, the speaker and the audience, the opponent and the proponent, culminating in obtaining the consent of the respondent with the statements and arguments of the argumentator, and relying on rational-critical forms of justification, is essential for a correct understanding of the characteristic features of argumentation.

These include, firstly, the idea of argumentation as a rational-logical component of the process of persuasion. This feature of argumentation has been and is recognized by all scientists, from Plato and Aristotle to modern argumentation theorists.

Other distinguishing feature argumentation lies in the fact that it is based on a rational analysis of those types of reasoning, with the help of which conviction is achieved.

Argumentation, on the other hand, is oriented from the very beginning to a rational analysis of the relationship between statements and arguments, which can be represented in various types reasoning. It can even be said that whenever a statement, a thesis, a decision is considered together with supporting or substantiating arguments, we are dealing with an argument. The relationship between a statement or conclusion and the arguments that support it can be of a deductive nature, when the conclusion is deduced from the arguments according to the rules of inference. Another type of relationship between a statement and arguments is called a logical confirmation relationship, which covers induction, analogy, statistical inference, and some other kinds of reasoning. In this case, the arguments only with varying degrees of likelihood or probability confirm the assertion, hypothesis or generalization put forward. If in deductive argumentation we are dealing with a complete substantiation of the assertions put forward, then in all other cases we can only talk about an incomplete, partial substantiation of our assertions.

In order to bring the principles of argumentation closer to real disputes and discussions, it is necessary to recognize both deductive and non-deductive methods of logic as legitimate means of reasoning, inferring the truth from the arguments presented, or pointing to the truth when it comes to induction and other plausible inferences. Obviously, in this case, we should not talk about purely formal reasoning, which, although they play an important role in substantiating scientific knowledge, are not used to search for truth and argumentation.

Argumentation is the most important, fundamental component of persuasion, since it relies, firstly, on the rational foundations of persuasion, on reason, and not on emotions, which are difficult to control and even more so to analyze. Secondly, at the very core of rational persuasion lies reasoning, i.e. the process of transforming one thought into another, which is controlled by the subject. Although informal reasoning does not allow a direct transfer of truth from premises to conclusions, nevertheless, we can evaluate their conclusions using rational analysis facts that support them. Thirdly, the argumentation seeks to reveal the real mechanism of rational persuasion as it occurs in the course of a dialogue, polemic, dispute or discussion, as well as in the adoption practical solutions. Fourth, due to its logical structure, the argument becomes orderly, purposeful and organized. The purposefulness and orderliness of argumentation finds its concrete embodiment in the sequence of those phases or stages that it goes through.

Of course, these phases in various fields of activity have their own specific features and differences, but, nevertheless, something common and invariant can be identified in them, which allows us to consider them within the framework of a single generalized argumentation scheme. .

At the first, initial stage, the main goal of the argument is formulated, the task or problem that has to be substantiated and thereby convince the audience of its truth, expediency, usefulness, etc. criteria.

The second stage of argumentation is associated with the search, evaluation and analysis of those facts, evidence, observations, experiments, data.

The third, final phase of the argumentation is connected with the establishment and justification of the logical connection between the data and the result obtained on their basis. Such a result may represent an indisputable conclusion drawn from the premises as arguments. For the most part, the conclusions of an argument are results obtained with the help of non-deductive reasoning, which confirm the conclusion to one degree or another and can therefore be evaluated with one degree or another of probability. Of course, in the course of a dispute or discussion, deductive conclusions are also used, but in practical reasoning, the argumentation relies primarily on non-deductive reasoning, the conclusions of which are indisputable, not final, but only plausible. That is why the careful assessment, criticism and correction of arguments, grounds or arguments, carried out in the process of argumentation, is of such decisive importance. Although the result or conclusion of an argument in various fields is called differently, for example, in law - a verdict, in science - confirmation of a hypothesis, in practice - making a decision, etc., but from a logical point of view, such a conclusion is the result reasoning, proof or confirmation of the thesis, based on the establishment of a certain logical relationship between the data and the conclusion.

3 . METHOD OF ARGUMENTATION AND CONVINCION OF THE INTERLOCTOR

The argumentation structure includes the thesis, arguments and demonstration:

A thesis is a statement of your position (your opinion, your proposal to the other side, etc.).

Arguments are the arguments, positions, evidence that you give to substantiate your point of view. Arguments answer the question why we should believe or do something.

Demonstration is the connection of the thesis and argument (i.e., the process of proof, persuasion).

With the help of arguments, you can completely or partially change the position and opinion of your interlocutor. To achieve success in a business conversation, you must adhere to some important rules:

1. Use simple, clear, precise and convincing terms;

2. Tell the truth; if you are not sure that the information is true, do not use it until you check it;

3. The pace and methods of argumentation should be chosen taking into account the characteristics of the character and habits of the interlocutor;

4. Argumentation must be correct in relation to the interlocutor.

5. Refrain from personal attacks on those who disagree with you;

6. Non-business expressions and formulations that make it difficult to perceive what has been said should be avoided, however, speech should be figurative, and arguments should be visual; if you provide negative information, be sure to name the source from which you take your information and arguments.

If you are very familiar with your subject, then you most likely already have some arguments at your disposal. However, in most cases, if you are going to convince your partners, it will be useful for you to stock up on convincing arguments in advance. To do this, you can, for example, make a list of them, weigh and choose the strongest.

But how to correctly assess which of the arguments are strong and which should be discarded? There are several criteria for evaluating arguments:

1. Good arguments must be based on facts. Therefore, from the list of your arguments, you can immediately exclude those that you cannot support with factual data.

2. Your arguments must be directly relevant to the case. If they are not, discard them.

3. Your arguments must be relevant to your opponents, so you need to find out in advance how interesting and timely they can be for them.

Modern scientific and educational literature highlights a number of rhetorical methods argumentation. Consider the most significant for situations of business interpersonal communication.

1. Fundamental method. Its essence is in a direct appeal to the interlocutor, whom you acquaint with the facts that are the basis of your evidence.

Numerical examples and statistical data play an essential role here. They are the perfect backdrop to support your thesis. After all, in contrast to the information stated in words - often controversial! -- Figures look more convincing: this source is usually more objective and therefore attractive.

When using statistics, you need to know the measure: a pile of numbers tires the listeners, and the arguments do not make the necessary impression on them. We also note that carelessly processed statistical materials can mislead listeners, and sometimes even deceive.

For example, the rector of the institute provides statistical data on first-year students. It follows from them that during the year 50% of female students got married. Such a figure is impressive, but then it turns out that there were only two students on the course, and one of them got married.

In order for statistics to be illustrative, they must cover a large number of people, events, phenomena, etc.

2. Method of contradiction. It is defensive in nature. Based on the identification of contradictions in reasoning, as well as the argument of the interlocutor and focusing on them.

Example: I.S. Turgenev described the dispute between Rudin and Pigasov about whether or not beliefs exist:

Wonderful! said Rudin. “So you don’t think there are any convictions?”

No and does not exist.

Is this your belief?

How do you say they don't exist. Here's one for you, for the first time. Everyone in the room smiled and looked at each other.

3. Method of comparison. Very effective and of exceptional value (especially when the comparisons are well chosen).

Gives the speech of the initiator of communication exceptional brightness and great power of suggestion. To a certain extent, it is in fact special form method of drawing conclusions. This is another way to make the statement more "visible" and weighty. Especially if you have learned to use analogies, comparisons with objects and phenomena that are well known to listeners.

Example: "Life in Africa can only be compared to being in a furnace, where, moreover, they forgot to turn off the light."

4. Method "yes, .. but ...". It is best used when the interlocutor treats the topic of conversation with some prejudice. Since any process, phenomenon or object has both positive and negative aspects in its manifestation, the “yes, ... but ...” method allows us to consider other options for resolving the issue.

Example: “I also imagine all the things you listed as benefits. But you forgot to mention a number of shortcomings ... ". And you begin to consistently supplement the one-sided picture proposed by the interlocutor from a new point of view.

5. Method of "pieces". It is often used - especially now, when dialogue, conversation, discussion are actively introduced into our lives instead of monologues. The essence of the method is in dividing the monologue of your interlocutor into clearly distinguishable parts: “this is for sure”, “this is doubtful”, “there are the most various points vision", "this is clearly erroneous".

In fact, the method is based on a well-known thesis: since in any position, and even more so in a conclusion, one can always find something unreliable, erroneous or exaggerated, then a confident “offensive” makes it possible to a certain extent “unload” situations, including the most complex.

Example: “What you reported about the model of modern warehouse operation is theoretically absolutely correct, but in practice there are sometimes very significant deviations from the proposed model: long delays from suppliers, difficulties in obtaining raw materials, slowness of the administration ...”.

6. Boomerang method. It makes it possible to use the "weapon" of the interlocutor against him. It has no force of proof, but it has an exceptional effect on the audience, especially if it is applied with a fair amount of wit.

Example: V.V. Mayakovsky speaks to the inhabitants of one of the districts of Moscow on the issue of solving international problems in the Land of Soviets. Suddenly someone from the audience asks: “Mayakovsky, what is your nationality? You were born in Baghdati, so you are Georgian, right? Mayakovsky sees that in front of him is an elderly worker who sincerely wants to understand the problem and just as sincerely asks a question. Therefore, he answers kindly: “Yes, among Georgians I am Georgian, among Russians I am Russian, among Americans I would be an American, among Germans I am German.”

At this time, two young men sitting in the front row sarcastically shout: “And among the fools?”. Mayakovsky calmly replies: “And among the fools I am for the first time!”.

7. Method of ignoring. As a rule, it is most often used in conversations, disputes, disputes. Its essence: the fact stated by the interlocutor cannot be refuted by you, but its value and significance can be successfully ignored. It seems to you that the interlocutor attaches importance to something that, in your opinion, is not so important. You state it and analyze it.

8. Method of withdrawal. It is based on a gradual subjective change in the merits of the case.

Example: "Wealth has no limits when in large sizes going abroad"; “The small fry knows best who will get the profit. But who will listen to the small fry?

9. Method of visible support. It requires very careful preparation. It is most appropriate to use it when you are acting as an opponent (for example, in a discussion). What is it? Let's say the interlocutor stated his arguments, facts, evidence on the issue of the discussion, and now the floor is given to you. But at the beginning of your speech, you do not contradict or object to him at all. Moreover - to the surprise of those present, come to the rescue by bringing new positions in his favor. But all this is just for show! And then comes the counterattack. Approximate scheme: “However ... you forgot to cite such facts in support of your thesis ... (list them), and this is far from all, since ...”. Now comes the turn of your counterarguments, facts and evidence.

4. RULES AND ERRORS RELATED TO ARGUMENTS

The logical consistency and evidentiary value of reasoning largely depends on the quality of the original factual and theoretical material - the persuasive power of arguments.

The argumentation process always involves a preliminary analysis of the available factual and theoretical material, statistical generalizations, eyewitness accounts, scientific data, etc. Weak and dubious arguments are discarded, the most compelling ones are synthesized into a coherent and consistent system of arguments.

Preliminary work is carried out taking into account a special strategy and tactics of argumentation. By tactics, we mean the search and selection of such arguments that will be the most convincing for a given audience, taking into account age, professional, cultural, educational and other characteristics. Speeches on the same topic before the composition of the court, diplomats, schoolchildren, theater workers or young scientists will differ not only in style, depth of content, psychological approach, but also in the type and nature of the argumentation, in particular, a special selection of the most effective, i.e. close, understandable and persuasive arguments.

1. The arguments given to prove the thesis must be true.

2. Arguments must be a sufficient basis to prove the thesis.

3. Arguments must be judgments, the truth of which is proven independently, regardless of the thesis.

1. The falsity of the foundation (“Basic Fallacy”). As arguments, not true, but false judgments are taken, which give out or try to pass off as true. The error may be unintentional. For example, Ptolemy's geocentric system was built on the false assumption that the sun revolves around the earth. An error can also be deliberate (sophism), committed with the aim of confusing, misleading other people (for example, giving false testimony by witnesses or the accused during a judicial investigation, incorrect identification of things or people, etc.).

The use of false, unproven or unverified arguments is often accompanied by phrases: “everyone knows”, “it has long been established”, “absolutely obvious”, “no one will deny”, etc. The listener, as it were, is left with one thing: to reproach himself for not knowing what has long been known to everyone.

2. "Anticipation of reasons." This mistake is made when the thesis is based on unproven arguments, the latter do not prove the thesis, but only anticipate it.

3. "Vicious circle". The mistake is that the thesis is justified by arguments, and the arguments are justified by the same thesis. This is a variation of the “applying an unproven argument” error.

5. REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEMS OF ARGUMENTATION

1. Requirement of reliability, i.e. The truth and proof of the arguments is determined by the fact that they act as logical foundations, based on which the thesis is derived. No matter how probable the arguments are, only a plausible, but not reliable thesis can follow from them. The addition of probabilities in premises only leads to an increase in the degree of probability of the conclusion, but does not guarantee a reliable result.

Arguments act as a foundation , on which the argument is based. If unverified or dubious facts are undemandingly placed at the foundation of reasoning, then the entire course of argumentation is thereby jeopardized. It is enough for an experienced critic to cast doubt on one or several arguments, as the whole system of reasoning collapses and the thesis of the speaker looks like an arbitrary and declarative one. There can be no question of the persuasiveness of such reasoning.

Violation of the specified logical rule leads to two errors. One of them - accepting a false argument as true - is called the "basic error" (error fundamentalis).

The reasons for such an error are the use of a non-existent fact as an argument, a reference to an event that did not actually take place, an indication of non-existent eyewitnesses, etc. not on any, but only on a solid foundation of true positions.

Especially dangerous is the “basic delusion” in forensic investigative activities, where false testimonies of interested persons - witnesses or the accused, - incorrect identification of a person, things or a corpse lead in some cases to judicial errors - punishment of an innocent or acquittal of a real criminal.

Another mistake is "anticipating the foundation" (petitio principii). It lies in the fact that unproven, as a rule, arbitrarily taken provisions are used as arguments: they refer to rumors, current opinions or assumptions made by someone and pass them off as arguments that allegedly substantiate the main thesis. In reality, the good quality of such arguments is only anticipated, but not established with certainty.

2. The requirements for autonomous substantiation of arguments means that since the arguments must be true, then before substantiating the thesis, the arguments themselves should be checked. At the same time, grounds are sought for arguments, without referring to the thesis. Otherwise, it may happen that unproven arguments are substantiated by an unproven thesis. This error is called "circulus in demonstrando".

3. The requirement of consistency of arguments follows from the logical idea, according to which anything formally follows from a contradiction - both the proponent's thesis and the opponent's antithesis. Substantially, not a single proposition necessarily follows from contradictory grounds.

In judicial and investigative activities, a violation of this requirement may be expressed in the fact that, with an unskilled approach to substantiating a decision in a civil case or a guilty verdict in a criminal case, they refer to factual circumstances that contradict each other: contradictory testimonies of witnesses and defendants that do not coincide with the facts of the conclusions of experts and etc.

4. The requirement for the sufficiency of arguments is connected with a logical measure - in their totality, the arguments must be such that, according to the rules of logic, the thesis to be proved must necessarily follow.

The rule of sufficiency of arguments manifests itself in different ways, depending on the various types of inferences used in the justification process. Thus, the insufficiency of argumentation when referring to analogy is manifested in a small number of features similar to the compared phenomena. Assimilation will be unfounded if it is based on 2-3 isolated similarities. An inductive generalization will also be unconvincing if the cases studied do not reflect the features of the sample.

Deviations from the requirements of sufficiency of arguments are inappropriate in either direction. The proof is untenable when they try to substantiate a broad thesis with separate facts - the generalization in this case will be “too or hasty”. The reason for the appearance of such unconvincing generalizations is explained, as a rule, by an insufficient analysis of the factual material in order to select from a multitude of facts only reliably established, undoubted and most convincingly confirming the thesis. The principle “the more arguments, the better” does not always give positive results. It is difficult to recognize a convincing argument when, striving to prove the thesis at all costs, they increase the number of arguments, believing that they thereby more reliably confirm it. In doing so, it is easy to commit the logical fallacy of "over-evidence" when apparently contradictory arguments are taken imperceptibly. Argumentation in this case will always be illogical or excessive, according to the principle "he who proves a lot, he proves nothing." In a hasty, not always well-thought-out analysis of the factual material, there is also the use of such an argument, which not only does not confirm, but, on the contrary, contradicts the thesis of the speaker. In this case, the proponent is said to have used a "suicidal argument." The best principle of persuasive reasoning is the rule: less is better, but more, i.e. all the facts and statements relating to the thesis under discussion must be carefully weighed and selected in order to obtain a reliable and convincing system of arguments. Sufficient arguments should be regarded not in terms of their number, but in terms of their weight. At the same time, separate, isolated arguments, as a rule, have little weight, because they allow different interpretations. It is a different matter if a number of arguments are used that are interconnected and reinforce each other. The weight of such a system of arguments will be expressed not by their sum, but by the product of the components. It is no coincidence that they say that an isolated fact weighs like a feather, while several connected facts crush with the weight of a millstone.

Thus, we have shown the importance of correct argumentation, which is based, first of all, not on the number of facts, but on their persuasiveness, brightness, and impressive logic.

6. EFFICIENCY OF ARGUMENTATION

What should be the object of evaluating the effectiveness of communication containing elements of argumentation: the achievement of the proponent's intention (the difficulty then is that the intention - in the mind of the latter - may not be from the very beginning, it may be formed in the course of speech or be opposite to the speaker's deep-seated intentions ), when the addressee is convinced of the validity of the arguments and comes to the asserted thesis, or is it something else? This question - although not always in an explicit formulation - underlies many foreign studies in recent years.

While purely logical proof rests on strictly regulated rules of inference, the area of argumentation is such assessments of arguments as plausibility, possibility and probability, taken in a meaning that cannot be formalized in the form of calculations. Any argument aims at bringing consciousnesses closer together, and thus presupposes the existence of intellectual contact. An effective argument is one that takes into account its audience, estimated as realistically as possible. When this prerequisite is fulfilled, it is possible to evaluate the effectiveness of argumentation as a rapprochement in worldview as a result of the adoption of the defended thesis: “Effective argumentation is one that leads to an increase in intensity in accepting someone else’s defended opinion, so as to persuade the listeners to the target action (positive action or to rejection of action) or at least to create in them a predisposition to such action, manifested at an opportune moment. Argumentation is characterized as a modification of the current state of affairs - as a change, in particular, in views, judgments, assessments that form a hierarchy of values. In this concept, therefore, the overall effectiveness of argumentation is evaluated in accordance with the first of the above alternatives - based on the achievement of the argumentator's intent.

But who is the “judge”, i.e. evaluating party? Apparently, this assessment is believed to be the result of collective efforts: “We will prove that rationality has its own “courts”, in which all sane people with relevant experience are entitled to act as judges or as jurors.” Argumentation may operate according to different methods or principles in different cultures and eras, so that various environments habitats represent, so to speak, parallels to the "jurisdiction" of rationality. But this is because they share interests with common "rational enterprises" in the same way that jurisdictions share common judicial enterprises. Therefore, if we understand how in rational enterprises, which are the loci of conceptual criticism and change, new concepts are introduced, historically developed, and proven to be valuable, then we can hope to identify the deeper considerations from which such conceptual change derives its "rationality." Our analysis of conceptual development will focus on the "ecological" relationship between the collective concepts of people and the changes in situations in which these concepts must be put into action. Thus, it can be assumed that people evaluate efficiency under the influence of various social factors named in the above quotation.

The manifestations of such an assessment, however, can be very diverse. So, in addition to achieving the goal of the argumentator, there is also the appropriateness of the argument (and, in general, this or that method of influence) in specific circumstances. “The question is,” writes Yu. Koppershmidt, “under what conditions can speech be considered appropriate when influencing the addressee from the point of view of the specific intentions of the speech.” Relevance, as follows from the most internal form of this term, means fit into the situation, or rather, into the structure of the situation in the aspect of dynamic processes embedded in the very scheme of influence as such; this includes the socially conditioned attitude of the addressee to the actions of the argumentator. And this attitude can stem not only from how we are spoken to and what we are told, but also from what we know about the speaker even before he begins to speak. That is, and from the predisposition of the addressee; from A.S. Pushkin: “Ah, it’s not difficult to deceive me, I myself am glad to be deceived.”

CONCLUSION

Argumentation, as well as the process of persuasion in general, is an art and it can only be mastered through practice, gradually and persistently improving one's skills. Analysis can be of great help here. common mistakes and tricks allowed in the course of argumentation and persuasion.

Argumentation in a real dispute, discussion and controversy occurs under the influence of psychological, moral, aesthetic, ideological, etc. factors and means of persuasion. This mutual interweaving of means and methods of persuasion greatly complicates the argument and the dialogue as a whole. In this case, various kinds of errors and deviations occur, which can be both intentional and unintentional. The first are designed to achieve victory in the dispute with their help. The latter arise spontaneously and do not set themselves the task of misleading the opponent.

Separating truth from opinion, sound argument from unfounded, reliable from plausible - is one of the main tasks of argumentation, which can be successfully solved by carefully and conscientiously analyzing the statements and opinions put forward, and evaluating and substantiating the arguments on which they are based.

LIST OF USED SOURCES

1 Alekseev, A.P. Argumentation. Cognition. Communication. / A.P. Alekseev.- M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2004. - 150 p.

2 Getmanova, A.D. Logic textbook. / A.D. Getmanova.- M. : Vlados, 2005. - 180 p.

3 Zaretskaya, E.N. Rhetoric: Theory and practice of verbal communication. / E.N. Zaretskaya.- M.: Delo, 2004. - 480 p.

4 Ivin, A.A. Theory of argumentation / A.A. Ivin. - M. : Gardariki, 2003. - 416 p.

5 http://www.elitarium.ru/

Hosted on Allbest.ru

What is argumentation and why is it important

The term "argumentation" comes from the Latin word "argumentatio", which means "bringing arguments". This means that we give any arguments (arguments) in order to arouse confidence or sympathy for the thesis, hypothesis or statement put forward by us. The complex of such arguments is the argumentation.

The task of argumentation- make sure that the addressee accepts the theory put forward by the author. And by and large, argumentation can be called an interdisciplinary study of conclusions as a result of logical reasoning. Argumentation takes place in the scientific, and in everyday life, and in the legal, and in the political spheres; always used in conversations, dialogues, persuasion, etc.

The ultimate goal of argumentation consists in persuading the audience of the truth of a position, inducing people to accept the author's point of view, inducing reflection or action.

Argumentation is a phenomenon of a historical nature, and it changes over time. To express it, language means are used, for example, spoken or written statements. These statements, their interrelationships and influence on a person are studied by the theory of argumentation.

Argumentation is a purposeful activity, and it can either strengthen or weaken someone's beliefs. Also this and social activity, because when a person argues his position, he influences those with whom he contacts. This implies a dialogue and an active reaction of the opposite side to evidence and evidence. In addition, the adequacy of the interlocutor is assumed, and his ability to rationally weigh the arguments, accept or challenge them.

It is thanks to argumentation that a person can clearly explain his point of view to someone, confirm its truth with strong arguments, and eliminate misunderstanding. Competently reasoned judgments minimize doubts, speak about the veracity and seriousness of the put forward hypotheses, assumptions and statements. In addition, if a person is able to make strong arguments in his favor, this serves as an indicator that he has more than once critically evaluated all the information he has.

For the same reason, it is worth trusting only those information that can be adequately argued. This will mean that they are verified, proven and true (or at least an attempt was made to do so). Actually, this is the goal of critical thinking - to question something in order to find confirming or refuting facts.

From all that has been said above, we can conclude that argumentation is the most correct and open way to influence the opinions and decisions of other people. Naturally, in order for teaching critical thinking to give a result, and for argumentation to be effective, it is necessary to know not only its theoretical, but also its practical foundations. We will continue with them.

Practical foundations of argumentation: structure, basic rules, criteria for evaluating arguments

The scope of the concept of "argumentation" is very deep. Given that this is perhaps the most difficult of the stages of persuasion, it requires a person to have knowledge and possession of the material, endurance and skill, assertiveness and correctness of statements. At the same time, it must be remembered that the author of the arguments always depends on his interlocutor, because the latter will decide whether the arguments are acceptable to him or not.

The argument has its own structure. It looks like this:

Proposing a thesis - the formulation of one's position, proposal or opinion
Bringing arguments - this includes evidence, evidence and arguments through which the author substantiates his position (arguments should explain why the interlocutor should believe or agree with you)
Demonstration - meaning the demonstration of the relationship of the thesis with the arguments (it is at this stage that conviction is achieved)

With the help of argumentation, you can partially or completely change the opinion and point of view of the interlocutor. However, to achieve success, you need to follow a few important rules:

It is necessary to operate with convincing, precise, clear and simple concepts.
The information must be truthful (if the reliability of the data is not established, then you do not need to use them until everything has been verified)
In the process of conversation, you need to select a certain pace and specific methods of argumentation, based on the characteristics of your character and temperament.
All arguments must be valid; no personal attacks are allowed
It is recommended to refrain from using non-business statements that make it difficult to understand the information; it is better to operate with visual arguments; when covering negative information in without fail its source is indicated

For a person who is well acquainted with what he is talking about, it will not be difficult to find good arguments. But most often, if there is a task to convince your interlocutor, it is better to stock up on convincing arguments in advance. For example, you can sketch a list of them, and then analyze and determine the most effective ones. But here you should know how to identify strong and weak arguments. This is done using the criteria for their evaluation:

Effective arguments are always based on facts. Based on this, from a list compiled in advance, you can immediately discard information that cannot be supported by facts.
Effective arguments are always directly related to the subject of discussion. All other arguments must be excluded.
Effective arguments are always relevant to the interlocutor. For this reason, it is necessary to find out in advance what interest the arguments will be for the addressee.

If you are sure that your arguments meet the proposed criteria, you can proceed directly to the argument. Based on this, the development of critical thinking involves the development of the main methods of argumentation.

Basic argumentation methods

Argumentation theory proposes to use a lot of argumentation methods. We will talk about the most effective of them from our point of view. They are suitable for both business and everyday communication.

fundamental method

The meaning of the method is to directly address the person to whom you want to acquaint the facts that represent the basis of your conclusions.

Highest value here has numerical and statistical information that serves as an ideal background to support the arguments. Unlike verbal (and often controversial) data, numbers and statistics are much more convincing and objective.

But one should not be too zealous in applying such information. Too many digits are tiring, and arguments lose their effect. It is also important that incorrect data can mislead the listener.

EXAMPLE: A university teacher gives statistics about first-year students. Based on it, 50% of female students gave birth to children. The figure is impressive, but in reality it turns out that in the first year there were only two girls, and only one gave birth.

Ignore Method

Most often, ignoring is used in disputes, disputes and conversations. The point is, if you can't disprove a fact your opponent is offering you, you can successfully ignore its meaning and value. When you see that a person attaches importance to something that, in your opinion, is not of particular importance, you simply fix it and let it pass by.

contradiction method

For the most part, this method can be called defensive. Its basis is to identify contradictions in the opponent's reasoning and focus attention on them. As a result, if his arguments are unfounded, you will easily win.

EXAMPLE (the dispute between Pigasov and Rudnev on the topic of the existence of beliefs, described by I. S. Turgenev):

"- Wonderful! Rudin said. “So, in your opinion, there are no convictions?”

- No, it doesn't exist.

- Is that your belief?

How can you say they don't exist. Here's one for you, for the first time. Everyone in the room smiled and looked at each other.

"Yes, but" method

The presented method gives the best results when the opponent is biased towards the topic of the conversation. Considering that objects, phenomena and processes have both positive and negative sides, this method provides an opportunity to see and discuss alternative ways to solve a problem.

EXAMPLE: “Like you, I am well aware of all the benefits you have listed. However, you did not take into account some shortcomings ... ”(Further on, the one-sided opinion of the interlocutor is consistently supplemented by arguments from a new position).

Comparison Method

This method is highly efficient, because. makes the author's speech bright and impressive. Also, this method can be called one of the forms of the "drawing conclusions" method. Thanks to him, the argument becomes weighty and explicit. For reinforcement, it is recommended to use well-known analogies with phenomena and objects.

EXAMPLE: "Life in the Arctic Circle can be compared to being in a refrigerator whose door never opens."

Boomerang method

"Boomerang" allows you to use his own "weapon" against the opponent. The method lacks probative power, but despite this, it affects the listener in the most serious way, especially if wit is used.

EXAMPLE: During a speech by V. V. Mayakovsky to the residents of one of the Moscow districts about the solution of problems of an international nature in the USSR, someone from the audience suddenly asked: “Mayakovsky, what nationality are you? You were born in Baghdati, so you are Georgian, right?”.

Mayakovsky looked at this man and saw an elderly worker who sincerely wants to understand the problem and just as sincerely asks his question. For this reason, he kindly replied: "Yes, among Georgians - I am Georgian, among Russians - I am Russian, among Americans - I would be an American, among Germans - I am German."

At the same time, two guys from the front row decided to make fun of: “And among the fools?”.

To this Mayakovsky replied: “And among the fools I am for the first time!”.

Partial argumentation method

One of the most popular methods. Its meaning boils down to the fact that the opponent’s monologue is divided into clearly distinguishable parts using the phrases “this is clearly not true”, “this question can be looked at in different ways”, “this is for sure”, etc.

It is interesting that the well-known thesis serves as the basis of the method: if something dubious or unreliable can always be found in any argument and conclusion, then confident pressure on the interlocutor makes it possible to clarify even the most difficult situation.

EXAMPLE: “Everything that you told us about the principles of operation of wastewater treatment plants is theoretically absolutely correct, but in practice, serious exceptions to the rules often have to be made” (The following are reasonable arguments in favor of your position).

Visible Support Method

Refers to the methods for which you need to prepare. You need to use it in situations where you are the opponent, for example, in a dispute. The essence of the method is as follows: suppose the interlocutor voiced his arguments to you about the problem under discussion, and the word goes to you. This is where the trick lies: at the beginning of your argument, you do not express anything in opposition to the words of your opponent; you even bring new arguments in support of it, surprising everyone present with this.

But this is only an illusion, because a counterattack will follow. It goes something like this: “But…. in support of your point of view, you forgot to cite several other facts ... (list these facts), and that’s not all, because ... ”(Your arguments and evidence follow).

Your ability to think critically and argue your position will be seriously developed, even if you limit yourself to mastering the above methods. However, if your goal is to achieve professionalism in this area, this will not be enough. To start moving forward, you need to explore other components of the argument. The first of these is the rules of reasoning.

Argumentation rules

The rules of argumentation are quite simple, but each of them differs in a set of its own features. There are four of these rules:

Rule One

Operate with persuasive, precise, clear and in simple terms. Keep in mind that persuasiveness is easily lost if the arguments being made are vague and abstract. Also take into account that in most cases people catch and understand much less than they want to show.

Rule Two

It is advisable to select the method of argumentation and its pace in accordance with the characteristics of your temperament (you can read about the types of temperament). This rule assumes:

Evidence and facts presented individually are more effective than those presented together.
A few (three to five) strongest arguments are more powerful than many average facts.
Argumentation should not take the form of a "heroic" monologue or declaration
With the help of well-placed pauses, you can achieve a better result than with the help of a stream of words.
Active rather than passive construction of statements has a greater impact on the interlocutor, especially when evidence is needed (for example, the phrase “we will do it” is much better phrase“it can be done”, the word “conclude” is much better than the phrase “conclude”, etc.)

Rule Three

The argument must always look correct. This means:

If the person is right, admit it openly, even if the consequences may not be good for you.
If the interlocutor accepted any arguments, in the future try to use them.
Avoid empty phrases that indicate a decrease in concentration and lead to inappropriate pauses to gain time or search for a thread of conversation (such phrases may be: “it was not said”, “you can do this and that”, “along with this”, “otherwise saying", "more or less", "as I said", etc.)

Rule Four

Adapt the arguments to the personality of the interlocutor:

Build an argument, taking into account the motives and goals of the opponent
Remember that so-called "over-persuasiveness" can cause rejection on the part of the opponent.
Try not to use wording and expressions that make it difficult to understand and argue.
Strive for the most visual presentation of your evidence, considerations and ideas with examples and comparisons, but remember that they should not diverge from the experience of the interlocutor, i.e. should be close and understandable to him
Avoid extremes and exaggerations so as not to distrust your opponent and not to question your entire argument.

Following these rules, you will increase the attention and activity of the interlocutor, minimize the abstractness of your statements, link arguments much more effectively and ensure maximum understanding of your position.

Communication between two people, when it comes to disputes and discussions, almost always takes place according to the "attacker - defender" scheme. Obviously, you can end up in either the first or the second position. Argumentation structures are formed according to this principle.

Argumentation constructions and argumentation techniques

In total, there are two main constructions of argumentation:

Evidential argumentation (used when you need to justify or prove something)
Counterargumentation (used when you need to refute someone's statements and theses)

To use both structures, it is customary to operate with the same techniques.

Argumentation techniques

Whatever your persuasive influence, you should focus on ten techniques that will optimize your argument and make it more effective:

Competence. Make your arguments more objective, credible, and deep.
visibility. Use familiar associations to the maximum and avoid abstract formulations.
Clarity. Link facts and evidence and beware of understatement, confusion and ambiguity.
Rhythm. Intensify your speech as you get closer to the end, but don't lose sight of the key points.
Orientation. When discussing something, stick to a specific course, solve clear problems and strive for clear goals, having previously introduced them in general terms to the opponent.
Suddenness. Learn to link facts and details in an unusual and unexpected way, and practice using this technique.
Repetition. Focus the interlocutor's attention on the main ideas and provisions so that the opponent perceives the information better.
Borders. Define the boundaries of reasoning in advance and do not reveal all the cards in order to maintain the liveliness of the conversation and the active attention of the interlocutor.
Saturation. When presenting your position, make emotional accents that force your opponent to be as attentive as possible. Don't forget to lower your emotionality as well to reinforce your opponent's thoughts and give him and yourself a little breather.
Humor and irony. Be witty and joke, but don't be overbearing. It is best to act this way when you need to fend off the interlocutor's attacks or make arguments that are unpleasant for him.

With the use of these techniques, your argumentative arsenal will be replenished with serious weapons. But, in addition to the methodological aspects, which for the most part include the technique of argumentation, the art of critical thinking and consistent reasoning is excellently developed by the tactics of argumentation.

Argumentation Tactics

Mastering the tactics of argumentation is not as difficult as it might seem. To do this, you just need to learn its basic provisions.

Using Arguments

Arguments must begin confidently. There should be no hesitation. The main arguments are stated at any suitable moment, but it is better to do it constantly in a new place.

Choice of technique

Technique (methods) should be selected taking into account psychological features opponent and your own.

avoidance of confrontation

In order for the argumentation phase to proceed normally, one should strive to avoid, because different positions and a tense atmosphere, like a flame, can spread to other areas of communication. And here we must point out a few nuances:

Critical questions are considered either at the very beginning or at the very end of the argumentation stage.
Delicate questions are discussed in private with the interlocutor even before the start of the conversation or discussion, because. tête-à-tête achieved much greater results than with witnesses
When the situation is difficult, there is always a pause, and only after everyone has “let off steam”, communication continues.

Maintain interest

It is most effective to offer the interlocutor options and information to arouse his interest in the topic in advance. This means that the current state of affairs is initially described with an emphasis on the likely negative consequences, and then the possible solutions and details their benefits.

Bilateral Argumentation

With it, you can influence a person whose position does not coincide with yours. You need to point out the pros and cons of your proposal. The effectiveness of this method is affected by the intellectual abilities of the opponent. But, regardless of this, it is necessary to present all the shortcomings that could become known to him from other people and from other sources of information. As for one-sided argumentation, it is used when the interlocutor has formed his own opinion and when he has no objections to your point of view.

Sequence of pros and cons

Based on the conclusions, the main formative influence on the position of the opponent is provided by such a presentation of information, where first the positive aspects are listed, and then the negative ones.

Personified Argumentation

It is known that the persuasiveness of facts depends on the perception of people (people, as a rule, are not critical of themselves). Therefore, first of all, you need to try to determine the point of view of the interlocutor, and then insert it into your construction of the argument. In any case, one should try not to allow contradictory arguments of the opponent and one's own argumentation. The easiest way to achieve this is to directly refer to your counterpart, for example:

What do you think about this?
You're right
How do you think this issue can be resolved?

When you recognize the correctness of the opponent and show attention to him, you will encourage him, which means that he will be more receptive to your argument.

Drawing conclusions

It happens that the argument is excellent, but the desired goal is not achieved. The reason for this is the inability to generalize information and facts. Based on this, for greater persuasiveness, it is imperative to independently draw conclusions and offer them to the interlocutor. Remember that the facts are not always obvious.

Counterargument

If suddenly you are presented with arguments that seem to you impeccable, there is no need to panic. On the contrary, you should keep your cool and apply critical thinking:

Are the given facts correct?
Can this information be refuted?
Is it possible to identify contradictions and inconsistencies in the facts?
Are the proposed conclusions wrong (at least in part)?

The presented tactics can be the final element of your entire argumentation strategy. And by and large, the information that you got acquainted with is quite enough to learn how to professionally argue your point of view, position and arguments. But still, this tutorial won't be complete unless we give a few more suggestions.

We want to conclude the third lesson of our course with a little talk about persuasive arguments - one more important element impact on the opinion of an individual and a group of people.

A few persuasive arguments

What is persuasion? If you do not understand the mass of all kinds of interpretations and interpretations, persuasion can be called the use of such words that will incline a communication partner to accept your point of view, believe your words, or do as you say. And how can this be achieved?

The famous American radical organizer and public figure Saul Alinsky created a completely simple theory of persuasion. It says that a person perceives information from the standpoint of personal experience. If you try to get your point across to another without taking into account what he wants to tell you, you may not even count on success. To put it simply, if you want to convince someone, you need to give them arguments that match their beliefs, expectations, and emotions.

Referring to this, there are four main options for action when arguing:

Factual data. While statistics can sometimes be wrong, the facts are almost always undeniable. Empirical evidence is considered one of the most persuasive tools for building the basis of an argument.
emotional impact. As one of the best American psychologists Abraham Maslow said, people respond best when we turn to their emotions, i.e. we touch on such things as family, love, patriotism, peace, etc. If you want to sound more convincing, express yourself in such a way as to hurt a person to the quick (of course, within reason and preferably in a positive way).
Personal experience. Stories from my own life and information verified on personal experience, are wonderful tools for influencing the listener. Actually, you yourself can see this for yourself: listen to a person who tells you something “according to the textbook”, and then listen to someone who himself has experienced or done what he is talking about. Who do you trust more?
Direct appeal. Of all the existing words, you can choose the one that people will never get tired of listening to - this is the word "You". Everyone asks himself the question: “What is the use of this for me?”. Hence another one: when trying to convince someone of something, always put yourself in his place, and when you understand his way of thinking, contact him with the help of “You” and explain what you need in “his” language.

Surprisingly, these four simple techniques are not used in life and work by a huge number of people, in particular those who, for some reason, downplay the merits of personalization, appeal to emotions and direct communication with people. But this is a gross mistake, and if you want to become convincing in your words, you should by no means allow it. Combine everything stated in this lesson into a single whole - and you will be amazed at how easily and quickly you can learn to be persuasive in any life situation.

Developing critical thinking and reasoning skills will provide you with many benefits in your family, daily, and professional life. But then again: there are things that can get in your way. What are these obstacles? We will answer this question in the next lesson, where we list most of the potential interference and give a lot of interesting examples.

Do you want to test your knowledge?

If you want to test your theoretical knowledge on the topic of the course and understand how it suits you, you can take our test. Only 1 option can be correct for each question. After you select one of the options, the system automatically moves on to the next question.

Laws of argumentation and persuasion

“It cannot but be shameful to be powerless to help oneself with a word,

for the use of the word is more natural to human nature than the use of the body."

Aristotle. "Rhetoric"

Proving and persuading are different processes.

To prove is not to convince.

Belief is the process of forming a new point of view to replace the old one. Persuasion is a successful rational and emotional influence on the free will of a person, as a result of which he himself comes to the conclusion that the act that you require of him is necessary.

To convince means to create the impression, to inspire confidence that the truth of the thesis has been proven.

The main idea of any speech - the thesis - is affirmed in the mind with the help of arguments.

Thesis- thought, position, the truth of which is required to be proved (WHAT do you want to prove).

it must be clearly articulated;

it must be formulated in the affirmative;

the thesis should not contain a logical contradiction;

it must remain unchanged in the course of this proof

Arguments- grounds, arguments, with the help of which the thesis is substantiated (proved). Proof is the logical establishment of the truth of some proposition on the basis of statements whose truth is known.

Argumentation- intellectual activity on the analysis and selection of grounds and arguments necessary for further reasoning and sufficient for this purpose.

inference is a conclusion made on the basis of several judgments. A way of thinking that leads from judgments to conclusions. He can be deductive: From general to specific; inductive: from private premises to a generalizing conclusion or conclusion Similarly.

Argumentation methods: logical reasoning, totality inferences, which are used in the proof; intelligent modeling; a thought experiment followed by a logical analysis of the findings.

Argumentation is a deeply personal, individual reasoning. PRINCIPLE I.

ARGUMENTS MUST BE TRUE STATEMENTS.

Demonstration- form or method of proof (logical reasoning, a set of inferences that are used in the proof).

Distinguish between direct and indirect evidence.

At direct evidence the thesis is substantiated by arguments without the help of additional constructions.

circumstantial evidence involves substantiating the truth of the thesis by refuting the contradictory position - the antithesis.

In indirect proof, two methods are used:

By contradiction

Exclusion method

Kinds of Arguments

They differ in the degree of impact on the mind and feelings of people: 1) strong; 2) weak and 3) insolvent. Counterarguments have the same gradation.

1. Strong - do not raise doubts, they cannot be refuted, destroyed, not taken into account. It:

precisely established and interrelated facts and judgments arising from them;

laws, charter, governing documents, if they are implemented and correspond to real life;

experimentally verified conclusions;

expert opinions;

quotations from public statements, books recognized in the field of authorities;

testimonies of witnesses and eyewitnesses of events;

statistical information, if its collection, processing and generalization are done by professional statisticians.

2. Weak

Raise doubts of opponents, customers, employees.

Inferences based on two or more facts, the relationship between which is not clear without a third.

Tricks and judgments built on alogisms (“Water? I drank it once, it does not quench my thirst.” Joke about “female logic”)

analogies and non-illustrative examples

arguments of a personal nature arising from circumstances or dictated by motivation, desire;

biased digressions, aphorisms, sayings (taken out of context)

arguments, versions or generalizations made on the basis of conjectures, assumptions, sensations;

conclusions from incomplete statistics.

3. Failed Arguments .

They allow you to expose, discredit the opponent who used them.

Judgments Based on Falsified Facts

Voided Decisions

Speculation, speculation, conjecture, conjecture

Arguments based on prejudice, ignorance;

Conclusions drawn from fictitious documents;

Advance Promises and Promises

False statements and testimonies

Forgery and falsification of what is being said.

A simple argument scheme

Thesis(hypothesis) - thesis development(arguments different types) –conclusions(suggestions).

Arguments of different types:

Interpretation, clarification of the thesis itself

Refutation of other opinions (proof by contradiction)

Positive facts, examples (examples from life, literature, history)

Contrasting facts, examples

Comparisons, analogies, juxtapositions

Summing up, conclusions

Laws of argumentation

The law of embedding (embedding) into the logic of the partner's reasoning

W the common language of thought

Law of argument minimization (5-7)

The law of objectivity and evidence

The law of dialectic (unity of opposites). Talk not only about the pros of your evidence, but also about the cons

The law of demonstration of equality and respect. A friend is easier to convince than an enemy.

The law of reframing (centering). Do not reject the partner's arguments, but, recognizing their legitimacy, overestimate their strength and significance by changing the context. Emphasize the importance of losses and decrease the importance of gains if you accept his position. Use the technique of reformulating the opponent's words in a favorable angle for you.

In the course of the argument, use those arguments that you and your opponent understand the same way.

if the argument is not accepted, find the reason for it and do not insist on it.

Do not underestimate the importance of the strong arguments of the opponent, emphasize their importance and your correct understanding.

Give your arguments after you have answered the arguments of your partner.

Measure the pace of argumentation with the characteristics of the partner's temperament.

Excessive persuasiveness always causes a rebuff - the superiority of a partner is insulting.

Give one or two striking arguments. Don't make the "argument brute force" mistake.

Hello, friends!

Often in discussions with readers and participants of my seminars, one thought “slips” - "And how to convince?"

You know, an experienced person in the field of persuasion can be taken by surprise by such a question. And here's why - in many ways, the persuasion procedure is already running on autopilot, and you yourself do not notice how you follow some kind of system.

It's like a specialist in martial arts, for whom many defensive blocks have been worked out to such an automaticity that he himself does not understand how he can block an avalanche of enemy blows with such speed.

That is, we have a need to build theory on the basis of practice. Yes, this is how everything happens in our field - first you do something yourself, you make sure that the equipment works, and then you share it with others.

You know, when it comes to persuasion, it immediately comes to mind the classic formula proposed by the legendary copywriter Gary Bensivenga. I don't think this guy needs any introduction.

To be clear, it would be more correct to call this formula an "equation".

This equation looks like this:

Problem + Promise + Proof + Solution = Persuasion

A standard scheme by which you can build persuasion in your sales texts.

P show that you are familiar with the client's problems

In every person's life there is problem situations- work, business, personal relationships, personal growth, health, appearance and so on.

We do not want to put up with these problems, because we understand that they slow us down and make unpleasant adjustments to our lives.

If you want to instantly attract attention, immediately voice the problems of customers that your product is designed to solve.

This is done so that from the first lines of your text, you show that the reader got to where he needs to be. That you understand him, and you are familiar with these difficulties.

But the main thing here is not to get carried away. To voice the problem does not mean to scare the reader terribly, so that he is huddled in convulsions of fear from your text.

I like to voice problematic moments in a soft style, starting their enumeration with a very loyal phrase:

“Surely, you are familiar with such situations ...”

* That is, we do not focus on the problem, but show its consequences that our reader has encountered.

For example, don't get carried away overweight", talk about how a woman does not feel free in her favorite dress, as she did before.

What is the main objective your promise?

By the way, "promise" is the word for you. It is undesirable to use phrases in the text in the style "we promise you..."- as practice shows, the reader is suspicious of such self-confident promises.

The main purpose of the "promise" element is to show the reader that the difficulty is temporary and not the end of the world.

It is important for the reader to understand that the situation is fixable, that he is not the only one in it. He enjoys reading when he sees that many people have also experienced this situation, and that they have already overcome it and are enjoying life to the fullest again.

You are like a beacon of hope.

Such an element allows you to gently and gradually transfer the reader from the problem block to the solution block. This is only the first step, if you give hope, then you do not need to limit yourself to words - they should be confirmed with something.

Don't tell, prove

Judge for yourself, why should a reader who does not know you personally believe your words? Words are so devalued today that people are judged precisely by their actions.

When a politician puts up a campaign banner with the stamp "Man of his word" hackneyed to holes, all the passers-by laugh. That's exactly what the words - say what he said, but who, my friend, will do?

Same with sales...

If you say that your product helps to save 20% of electricity - if you please, by numbers to prove how and due to what this happens, only in this way they will believe you.

Don't forget the power of "social proof" (I hope Russian speakers will forgive me for using the term in this way). Give the reader a hero. Demonstrate the full power of your product with a specific example from the life of your client.

The scheme is simple: before the product it was bad, but after the product it became great. Technique "past-future".

It's time to propose

When a man makes a marriage proposal to a woman, as a rule, with his words and deeds, he has already proved his own viability to be a caring husband and a decent family man.

You voiced the problem, gave hope, confirmed it with evidence, and now it's time to make an offer.

As they say, the client has already been "warmed up" (not to be confused with "warmed up") - now it's time to take decisive action.

And now your super product or super service appears on the scene, which are designed to overcome customer difficulties. Then your proposal no longer looks so intrusive and frontal.

You did everything according to science, and then we get a conviction, and not an amateur "push" for which signs are already posted in offices: "We shoot every third sales manager, the second one just got out".

Use this formula-equation in your texts, and then the process of persuasion will begin to bring a good harvest.

Problem promise arguments solution persuasion examples. Argumentation and arguments to convince the interlocutor and make managerial decisions. Laws of argumentation and persuasion

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

3 . METHOD OF ARGUMENTATION AND CONVINCION OF THE INTERLOCTOR

Similar Documents

What is argumentation and why is it important

Practical foundations of argumentation: structure, basic rules, criteria for evaluating arguments

Basic argumentation methods

fundamental method

Ignore Method

contradiction method

"Yes, but" method

Comparison Method

Boomerang method

Partial argumentation method

Visible Support Method

Argumentation rules

Rule One

Rule Two

Rule Three

Rule Four

Argumentation constructions and argumentation techniques

Argumentation techniques

Argumentation Tactics

Using Arguments

Choice of technique

avoidance of confrontation

Maintain interest

Bilateral Argumentation

Sequence of pros and cons

Personified Argumentation

Drawing conclusions

Counterargument

A few persuasive arguments

Do you want to test your knowledge?

Kinds of Arguments

A simple argument scheme

Laws of argumentation

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

3 . METHOD OF ARGUMENTATION AND CONVINCION OF THE INTERLOCTOR

Similar Documents

What is argumentation and why is it important

Practical foundations of argumentation: structure, basic rules, criteria for evaluating arguments

Basic argumentation methods

fundamental method

Ignore Method

contradiction method

"Yes, but" method

Comparison Method

Boomerang method

Partial argumentation method

Visible Support Method

Argumentation rules

Rule One

Rule Two

Rule Three

Rule Four

Argumentation constructions and argumentation techniques

Argumentation techniques

Argumentation Tactics

Using Arguments

Choice of technique

avoidance of confrontation

Maintain interest

Bilateral Argumentation

Sequence of pros and cons

Personified Argumentation

Drawing conclusions

Counterargument

A few persuasive arguments

Do you want to test your knowledge?

Kinds of Arguments

A simple argument scheme

Laws of argumentation

Read also