Arguments are divided into strong, with significant persuasive power, and weak. The strength of an argument is a relative value; it depends on those views and opinions, as well as the picture of the world reflected in the mind, which are characteristic of the listener.

However, there are arguments that are almost always strong. They do not cause criticism, they are difficult or impossible to refute, destroy, not take into account: * precisely established and interconnected facts and judgments arising from them, * laws, charters, governing documents, if they are implemented and correspond to real life; * experimentally verified conclusions;

expert opinions; quotations from public statements, books of recognized authorities in this field; testimonies of witnesses and eyewitnesses of events; statistical information, if its collection, processing and generalization are done by professional statisticians.

Weak arguments include arguments based on: personal confidence or doubt of the speaker; inferences based on two or more separate facts, the connection between which is unclear without a third; tricks and judgments built on alogisms; references (quotations) to authorities unknown or little known to your listeners or not authoritative for them; analogies and indicative examples;

analogies and indicative examples; arguments of a personal nature arising from circumstances or dictated by motivation, desire; tendentiously selected digressions, aphorisms, sayings; arguments, versions or generalizations made on the basis of conjectures, assumptions, sensations; conclusions from incomplete statistics. The strength of these arguments is the higher, the more authoritative in the eyes of the listener looks the speaker or the person whose words are quoted.

Untenable arguments They allow you to expose, discredit the opponent who used them. They are: judgments based on rigged facts; links to dubious, unverified sources; invalid decisions; conjectures, conjectures, assumptions, fabrications; arguments based on prejudice, ignorance; conclusions drawn from fictitious documents; advance promises and promises; false statements and testimony; forgery and falsification of what is said.

You can also use arguments "from the contrary", such that contradict the thesis. However, by temporarily agreeing with the validity of these arguments, you can show that the consequences of accepting their justice will be negative, ridiculous, or even absurd and terrifying.

Excessive persuasiveness always causes a rebuff, since the superiority of a partner in a dispute is always insulting. Give one or two striking arguments and, if the desired effect is achieved, limit yourself to them. The order in which arguments are presented affects their persuasiveness. The most convincing order of arguments is: strong - medium - one strongest.

Argumentation based on strong arguments, which are supported by weak ones, is possible. For example, you can prove the validity of a thesis based on facts and reinforce these arguments with your own confidence and the statement of a famous person, an aphorism or a proverb.

When arguing, use only those arguments that you and your opponent understand the same way. If the argument is not accepted, find the reason for this and then do not insist on it in the conversation. Do not underestimate the importance of strong arguments of the opponent. Rather, on the contrary, emphasize their importance and your correct understanding. Bring your arguments that are not related to what the opponent or partner said after you have answered his arguments. More precisely measure the pace of argumentation with the characteristics of the partner's temperament.

The law of embedding (embedding). Arguments should be built into the logic of the partner's reasoning, and not driven in (breaking it), not stated in parallel. The law of the general language of thought. If you want to be heard, speak in the language of your opponent's main informational and representational systems. Law of minimization of arguments. Remember the limitations of human perception (five to seven arguments), so limit the number of arguments. It is better if there are no more than three or four of them. The law of objectivity and evidence. Use as arguments only those accepted by your opponent. Do not confuse facts and opinions. The law of demonstration of equality and respect. Present arguments showing respect for the opponent and his position. Remember that a "friend" is easier to convince than an "enemy".

The law of authority. References to an authority known to your opponent and perceived by him as an authority also increase the impact of your arguments. Seek authoritative backing for them. The law of reframing. Do not reject the partner's arguments, but, recognizing their legitimacy, overestimate their strength and significance. Strengthen the significance of the losses in case of accepting his position or reduce the significance of the benefits expected by the partner (cf. the method of contradiction). Gradual law. Do not try to quickly convince your opponent, it is better to go in gradual but consistent steps. Feedback law. Give feedback in the form of an assessment of the opponent's state, a description of your emotional state. Take personal responsibility for misunderstandings and misunderstandings. The law of ethics. In the process of argumentation, do not allow unethical behavior (aggression, arrogance, etc.), do not touch the "sore spots" of the opponent.

Homer's rule. The order in which arguments are presented affects their persuasiveness. The following order of arguments is most convincing: strong - medium - one strongest (do not use weak arguments at all, they do harm, not good). The strength (weakness) of arguments should be determined not from the point of view of the speaker, but from the point of view of the decision maker.

Socratic rule. To get a positive decision on an issue that is important to you, put it in third place, prefixing it with two short, simple questions for the interlocutor, to which he will probably answer you without difficulty "yes". The interlocutor subconsciously tunes in favorably and it is psychologically easier for him to say "yes" than "no".

Pascal's rule Do not drive the interlocutor into a corner. Give him the opportunity to "save face", save dignity. Nothing is more disarming than the terms of an honorable surrender.

The Matthew effect, or the effect of accumulated advantage A social phenomenon in which, as a rule, those who already have them receive advantages, and those who were initially deprived are even more deprived. In other words, those with power and economic or social capital can use those resources to gain even more power and capital. For the first time, the American sociologist Robert Merton began to speak about the Matthew effect: in a publication in the journal Science in 1968, he drew attention to the psychosocial factors that affect the recognition and evaluation of scientific works.

Merton called the Matthew effect the potential advantage that the publications of established scientists have over the publications of their lesser-known colleagues. With the same scientific level of two articles, the chances of success in the professional community are higher for one written by a more eminent author (for example, a Nobel laureate). The name of the effect is given according to a quote from the Gospel of Matthew: “To everyone who has it will be given and multiplied, but from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away” (Matthew 25:29).

You have prepared a "persuasive speech". You have 3-4-5-10 reasons to support your idea that you want to promote. But,

• Some of these arguments are strong... some are weak...
• Some arguments are emotional... some appeal to logic...

Questions arise: "In what order should these arguments be placed? Which one should be given first, which one in the middle, which one at the end?"

There are different strategies

Strategy 1: "We put strong arguments at the beginning and at the end"

"The first and the last are remembered ..." - so it seems, said von Stirlitz. There is a grain of truth in this.

• If you start with a weak argument that everyone doubts, then your further argument will be listened to with distrust. Therefore, it is better to start with a strong, undeniable argument.
• If you end with a weak argument, then the ending of your speech will be blurry. And the listeners will have in their hearts exactly the feeling of doubt that your last argument gave rise to.

Therefore, it is quite logical to put your strongest arguments at the beginning and at the end!

***This strategy is good when you have full control over the time of the speech and are sure that you will have time to deliver your strongest argument, which you saved for the very end.

Strategy 2 "The strongest, the strongest, the average..."

If you know that your speech time can be instantly reduced without your knowledge, then it is better to start with the strongest argument and work your way down.

• For example, you came to convince someone who is in a hurry and is not very positive about your idea. If you start with a weak or average argument, then most likely you will immediately stumble upon "thank you, no need." And it will remain in my soul: “Damn! I didn’t have time to pronounce the most important arguments! And if I had time, I could have convinced ...”

In such situations, it is better to start with the strongest argument. Pronounce it. If you see that it was not enough, then in addition, say the second strongest argument. Then the third...

*** But here it is important not to get carried away ... and limit yourself to 3-4 arguments. And then, if no one interrupts you, and you come to your last, weakest argument, then you will rather not convince, but make your listeners doubt.

"Emotional or logical?"

The selection of arguments primarily depends on the audience - to whom are you speaking? But suppose we have a "diverse audience."

• Listeners trust logical arguments better if they have confidence in the speaker, if the speaker evokes a positive emotional response in them. Therefore, it is often worth starting your speech with an emotional argument. If you attracted listeners to your side at the level of emotions, then later logical arguments will find a greater response in the hearts of listeners.
• In the end, listeners often need to be nudged into action. And here, too, an emotional argument can work well, causing the right emotional wave, on which the listeners will be ready to perform the actions we need.

In summary, it is a good idea to put emotional arguments at the beginning and at the end that will create the necessary emotional background. And in the middle, already influence, including the logic of the listeners.

Alas, there are no unambiguous rules in the matter of "how to arrange arguments". Each time it will depend on the audience, on the topic, on the time available, on the purpose of the speech ... But, hopefully, the ideas from this article will in most cases help you to put the correct order of the argument.

Leader and Lead Trainer

"University of Rhetoric and Oratory"

Argumentation strategies:

The most difficult step is selection of arguments. Argumentation can be based on two principles: on the approval of one’s own thesis and on the refutation of the opponent’s thesis (the latter is easier, because the opponent takes over the work of generating new ideas, and you can only scold his ideas).

With the confirmation strategy, a person gives arguments that confirm his thesis (we do not take the kindergarten situation, when the thesis is simply repeated many times, but without a single proof).

Direct confirmation of the thesis.

Thesis: squirrels are dangerous animals.

Argument: because they attack people.

It still happens indirect confirmation, when another proposition is deduced from the thesis, its truth is proved and then the truth of the first thesis is proved.

Thesis: Squirrels are dangerous animals.

Additional thesis: Bites from dangerous animals require medical supervision.

Argument: Indeed, after a squirrel bite, you will have to visit the emergency room and get vaccinated against rabies. This proves that proteins are dangerous.

Rebuttal strategy:

direct refutation :

Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.

Refutation of the counterthesis: Proteins spoil their habitat, i.e. they are not harmless.

It also happens indirect rebuttal. Then the person himself deduces certain provisions from the counterthesis (opponent's thesis), refutes them, and thus refutes the counterthesis itself.

Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.

Additional counterpoint:Harmless animals are kept at home.

Refutation of the counterthesis: No one keeps protein at home, only fans This means that proteins are not harmless and unsafe.

In the fight against an opponent is also a good way refutation of arguments, which leads to the recognition of the groundlessness of the counterthesis and to the reinforcement of the thesis.

Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.

Argument: They are small animals compared to humans.

Refutation of the argument: Viruses are also small, but they can cause great harm to a person. So size doesn't matter here.

Another way to refute demo refutation, i.e. proof that arguments that are valid in themselves are not connected with a counterthesis.

Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.

Argument: Squirrels are beautiful and graceful.

Demonstration rebuttal: Yes, squirrels are beautiful and graceful, but this does not affect their safety in any way. Jaguars are also beautiful and graceful, but would anyone agree to meet one on one with a hungry jaguar at night?

Argument types:

Arguments are divided into:

1. natural evidence: arguments for the obvious(eyewitness accounts, documents, expert examination data, scientific experiment - "tangible" evidence)

2. artificial evidence(other)

artificial evidence :

- logical (arguments to logos)

There are two types logical evidence: syllogism(the particularity is proved with the help of general statements) and guidance(the general assertion is proved on the basis of particulars).

This corresponds to two methods of deriving conclusions: deduction(from the general to the particular) and induction(from the particulars, a conclusion is drawn about the general). Sherlock Holmes, who all the time shouted about the deductive method, actually used the inductive method (from the particulars he deduced the whole). Induction can fail, because from several particular facts we can draw some kind of conclusion, and then one fact will take and refute it (for example, we will decide on the basis of observations that all pigeons are blue-gray, and then some white scoundrel will fly in and that’s it). spoil).

Examples of syllogisms :

A syllogism usually includes two premises and a conclusion.

The premises and the conclusion are judgments.

Judgments are of four types: general affirmative (all objects that have a certain property also have another property);

All people are mortal

private affirmative (some objects that have a certain property also have another property);

Some people are men

general negative(no object that has a certain property has another property); No man is a plant

partial negative (some objects that have a certain property do not have another property)

Some people are not children

A judgment is divided into a subject (what is being said) and a predicate (what is new about the subject).

All professors (M) have a degree (P)(includes conclusion predicate: major premise).

Pantelei Prokofich Kryndilyabrov (S) - professor (M) (includes the subject of the conclusion: a small premise).

Panteley Prokofich ( S ) has a degree (P).

All professors are the subject of an utterance. Have a degree - a predicate.

Pantelei Prokofich is a subject. The professor is a predicate.

Panteley Prokofich is again a subject. Has a degree - a predicate.

Subjects and predicates must match, otherwise the syllogism will be meaningless (we equated the subject of the first premise with the subject of the second, after which the predicate of the first premise turned out to be the predicate of the second as well).

Allocate large (P), small ( S ) and the middle (M) member of the syllogism. The middle member acts as an intermediary and does not appear in the conclusion (in our case, the professor). A large penis - in this case it is "having a degree." Small member - Pantelei Prokofich.

Not all syllogisms are equally correct (not all yogurts are equally healthy).

The conscious construction of an incorrect syllogism at the output gives a sophism (“People eat bread.Pigs eat bread.Therefore, people are pigs.”). There are syllogisms in which a mistake is made unintentionally.

For example: Many PhDs are assistant professors. Pasha Zyabkin - Ph.D. Pasha Zyabkin - Associate Professor.

In fact, Pasha Zyabkin may or may not be an assistant professor: not all candidates of science are assistant professors at the same time, these are two partially overlapping sets, and Pasha Zyabkin can either be a member of both sets or belong to one of them, i.e. e. many candidates.

There are multi-story syllogisms (complex).

Men like Angelina Jolie.

Men like beautiful women.

If men like Angelina Jolie, then she is a beautiful woman.

Women who look like Angelina Jolie are also beautiful.

Dunya looks like Angelina Jolie, so Dunya is also beautiful.

guidance(inductive method)

It often leads to errors, because it forces one to accept as truth a conclusion that concerns only a part of the phenomena.

For example: I saw only rock pigeons on the streets of the city. Pigeons are only gray.

Close to induction is analogy(properties of one object known to us are transferred to another). Unlike induction, we are talking about a single object about which we know something, and the transfer is also made to a single object, and not to a class of beings / substances.

For example: I'll take a red apple. I do not want to take green - it for sure sour. Yesterday I ate a green apple and it was terribly sour.

it physical analogy . Within its framework, close or identical objects are compared.

Is there some more figurative analogy. It allows you to match distant objects.

For example: A good marriage is everything equals what comfortable house slippers.

- arguments for ethos (mores) / ethical arguments (reliance on the collective experience of society)

arguments for empathy (mentioning the qualities that are positioned in society as commendable)

a) direct attacks on a person (my opponent is a cretin)

b) indirect attack (my opponent is interested in the results of the discussion, so his opinion cannot be considered objective)

c) an indication that the person has previously said or done something different

- arguments for pathos(passions)/emotional arguments (relying on a person's individual experience)

The author evokes certain, pre-programmed emotions (positive or negative) in the audience. In this case, the arguments can be directed to the audience itself, to the speaker (some feelings should arise for him) or to third parties (feelings towards them)

a) arguments for a promise (promises)

b) arguments for the threat (audience intimidation)

reasons for trust

If we are talking about logical proof, the argument for confidence is that, along with logical reasoning, the person to whom this reasoning belongs is indicated, and, as a rule, this person is characterized in accordance with the "logos" spirit, such as "the great thinker of antiquity ”, “famous logician of the twentieth century”, “Chinese sage”, etc.Sometimes the names speak for themselves, and then the usual way of introducing them is as follows: "Even Socrates believed that ...", "Aristotle himself, the father of logic, believed that ...". As a third party when cast logical proof experts can speak.

A reference to authority in an argument to ethos most often contains a characteristic of authority (from the “ethos” side) and an indication of the addressee of the speech. Her usual scheme is as follows: "So-and-so, and he knows a lot about this, he said that we often forget about something."

The reference to authority in an argument for pathos also usually contains a characterization of the authority itself. This can be not only an authority in the proper sense of the word, but also a little-known person who has become an authority as a person who has experienced firsthand what is said in the threat or promise. Moreover, in the latter case, the third party can be named generically: “Every American will tell you that...”, “Those who have experienced the horrors of war do not need to be explained that...”, “Those who lived under socialism remember very well how...”.

d leads to distrust

Distrust in the argument to the logos is created by the fact that a deliberately false statement is given, which belongs to a person whose logical abilities the author doubts. In this case, the "out-of-the-box" effect is often used as well.

Distrust when arguing for ethos is created by the fact that a person is qualified as not knowing people (most often quite specific people, a given social or age group), not understanding their ethical attitudes. For example: “So-and-so speaks with great feeling about the problems of youth. But he apparently forgot how young people live. And he simply has no idea about today's youth, their thoughts and feelings.

Distrust when arguing for pathos (threat or promise) is created in a similar way: it is shown that the person who appeals to pathos does not know well the people to whom he appeals. For example: “He promises hungry old people Snickers and discos! He invites them to enjoy the sounds of heavy metal, and they need free medical care!” Or: “He threatens the rebels with war? People who have been carrying weapons with them for forty years! Yes... It is unlikely that this politician will be able to control people!”

Argument selection strategy:

When choosing arguments, consider the following:

strong arguments are natural proofs:

Judgments based on well-established, documented facts

Experimental results

Testimony of disinterested and competent eyewitnesses

Expert opinions

Statistical Calculations

As well as:

Quotes from statutes, laws, regulations, etc.

However, even with such arguments you can fight (if you really need it):

Facts can be accurate, but they can be interpreted in your own way (for example, to doubt the causal chain)

The opinions of experts and authorities can be challenged by calling into question their right to conduct an examination, their viability as specialists, their disinterest in the results, and it can also be clarified whether the opinion of the experts concerned this particular situation or this opinion was simply farfetched

Witnesses can be suspected of being interested and that they could not soberly assess the situation / in amnesia

Statistical calculations can be accused of being unrepresentative (are you sure you interviewed the entire population of the globe?)

Weak arguments are recognized:

Conclusions from dubious statistics (interviewed five people in a nightclub)

Reasoning with incorrect application of the syllogism scheme

Sophisms, reasoning with a deliberately made logical error ("Horns")

Contrived analogies (an analogy between playing basketball and driving a car)

One-sidedly selected aphorisms and sayings

Generalizations

Assumptions based on personal experience

Insolventthe following arguments:

Conclusions based on rigged facts

- speculation

Advance promises not supported by deeds, personal assurances (I guarantee you ..., I assure you as a specialist ..., I ask you to just take it on faith ...)

You should not give too many arguments: a large number of arguments, especially arguments of different sizes, leads to a loss of persuasiveness, to the depreciation of each specific argument.

Individual arguments should not be abandoned if together they create a convincing picture (a situation where only the sum of the arguments can be convincing, but not each of the arguments separately). Let's say we're trying to substantiate a murder charge against a dead man's son. We have no direct evidence, but we can show by the sum of the arguments that it was the son who was most interested in the death of his father and had the best opportunity to kill.

You should not use arguments that can be turned to your advantage by the opposite side. The destructive power of your own argument, used by enemies, increases many times over.

Reasoning errors are:

1) errors related to the thesis

Substitution of the thesis- in the process of argumentation, the author begins to prove a different thesis, not the one that he outlined at the beginning. It can be done on purpose, it can be done by accident.

Proof of absurd theses .

2) arguments related errors

Use of false premises (a good driver never gets into an accident).

3) demo related errors

Parcels not related to the thesis are used as arguments (first a company of four people came to the cafe, then a company of three, the next visitors will be a couple).

Arguments (reasons) are thoughts, judgments given to confirm the thesis. Facts, references to authoritative sources, examples from life, literature, etc. can be used to reinforce arguments. Argument Requirements:

* There should be exactly as many arguments as needed to prove the thesis;

* Arguments must be true;

* Arguments are formulated clearly and consistently;

* Arguments are combined into a system.

Starting work on the arguments, formulate two or three statements that together prove the validity of the thesis. After that, pick up illustrations for them - specific examples that reinforce the argument. It must be remembered that the argumentation is based on logical arguments, but it must necessarily be supported by psychological ones, that is, not only be based on the correspondence of real life and have a clear form from the point of view of logic, but also influence the feelings of the listener.

Arguments

brain teaser

Psychological

Influence the mind, convince through the sphere of the rational:

* facts beyond doubt;

* conclusions of science (including scientific axioms);

* statistical data;

* Nature laws;

* provisions of legal laws, official documents, resolutions and other normative legal acts;

* data obtained experimentally, expert opinions, etc. Influence feelings, convince through the sphere of the emotional:

* personal confidence or uncertainty of the writer or speaker;

* statistical data, if they evoke certain emotions with their impressiveness and significance;

* examples that evoke emotions;

* showing the negative consequences that will come if the antithesis is taken as the truth;

* direct appeal to conscience, feelings, duty, etc.

Arguments strong and weak

Arguments are divided into strong, with significant persuasive power, and weak. The strength of an argument is a relative value; it depends on those views and opinions, as well as the picture of the world reflected in the mind, which are characteristic of the listener. The same arguments can be perceived differently in different audiences. For example, a reference to the Bible is unlikely to convince an atheist, but it will turn out to be an indisputable authority among believers. However, there are arguments that are almost always strong: facts of reality that cannot be doubted, the laws of nature, data obtained experimentally, expert opinions, statistical data, scientific axioms, etc. Weak arguments include arguments based on the speaker's personal confidence or doubt, the authority of third parties (including references to the opinions of famous people, literary sources, quotations). The strength of these arguments is the higher, the more authoritative in the eyes of the listener looks the speaker or the person whose words are quoted. The best argumentation is based on strong arguments, which are supported by weak ones. For example, you can prove the validity of a thesis based on facts and reinforce these arguments with your own confidence and the statement of a famous person, an aphorism or a proverb. Try to use counter-arguments as well, such as contradict the thesis. However, by temporarily agreeing with the validity of these arguments, you can show that the consequences of accepting their justice will be negative, ridiculous, or even absurd and terrifying.

Every argument has two parts. The first is the basis with which it is impossible to argue. The second is an obvious link to this foundation of a provable thought. When a mother tells her daughter not to put her fingers in the socket, the daughter obeys because a) mother is an authority (this is the basis of the argument) and b) because mother personally says not to do this (this is an obvious link).

There are many arguments, but the grounds for the arguments are much less. It is they who allow you to build your speech so that it is convincing. Below is a golden dozen of these reasons, twelve types of arguments known TOPIC: ESCALATING CLAIMS since the time of Aristotle.

1. Convincing is what can be verified

To consider something true, a person does not have to check the truth himself, it will be enough for him to have the opportunity to check. When there is a clear, accessible and real way to check, this is already enough. Then laziness (and trust in the speaker) will connect, no one will check anything, but the conviction will work.

2. Convincing is what is unique

Uniqueness is so valuable to us that we automatically consider anything that carries unique qualities or confirms uniqueness to be convincing.

So, since there are few resources similar to Lifehacker in Russia, it is the uniqueness argument that can be used to explain the need to visit it every day.

However, here it is necessary to make a reservation that it is only the West that is delighted with uniqueness, and for Eastern cultures it is inferior to authenticity. Therefore, for the representatives of the East, the following argument is better suited.

We don't question the familiar, so when something new or controversial is similar to the familiar, that's a strong enough argument that it's true.

When a guy meets a girl and tries to make a good impression on her, he thinks he is using uniqueness arguments (“I am such and such, I have such and such, I am the best”). But the girl perceives this as an argument for compatibility: it is important for her to understand how similar this person is to the best examples of male behavior imprinted in her memory.

4. Convincing is what indicates regression

Everything gets worse and worse. Well, maybe not all, but a lot. Even if not much, then certainly something. The idea of ​​regression is hardwired into our brains: you must admit that earlier not only the trees were greener, but also the dogs were kinder, the dawns were quieter, and the products were without food. So it is very convenient to rely on the idea of ​​regression in your proofs.

For example, the need to introduce the death penalty can be easily justified by an increase in the number of crimes and / or their increased cruelty.

5. Convincing is what shows progress

Ideas of progress are even more ingrained in us than ideas of regression. We will readily accept as truth that which will confirm our faith in progress.

That is why it is convenient for a politician to rely on progress to explain the need for his re-election to some post. Although the connection of his activity with progress is not obvious, but the progress itself is not subject to doubt: it means that it is necessary to re-elect. "You have begun to live better - vote for me."

6. Persuasive follows logically from persuasive

This argument is called the causal argument. Briefly, it can be represented as a logical link "if - then". Of course, in each argument there is a logical link, but only in this it is the main supporting structure, all the emphasis is placed on it.

Example: "If we consider ourselves reasonable people, then we cannot ignore arguments based on". Or like this: "If we consider ourselves reasonable people, then we should not believe everything we read on the Internet." And also like this: "If we consider ourselves reasonable people, then we should not tolerate such bullying with three identical examples, when everything was clear without that."

7. The fact is convincing

The most common and understandable argument is the data argument. It is used most often, but not because it is the strongest, but because it is the easiest. When applying it, remember that there are no facts - only interpretations. The strength of a fact lies not in its truthfulness, but in its vividness. And in frequent repetition, but it is unlikely that you have the resources to launch propaganda, so you have to make do with brightness.

For example: "Russia is the most peaceful country, because it has never attacked anyone, has not waged offensive wars." This fact has nothing to do with historical reality, but how the argument works.

8. Persuasive is what is useful

The most honest argument - at least he tries to look like it. In the end, we really do consider everything from the point of view of usefulness. What is useful is true; what is beneficial is good. A pragmatic argument will never fail you if you can link the thesis you are arguing with the real benefit of your listeners.

“Pay your taxes and sleep well,” the Federal Tax Service advises us. It may seem that this is a call to our conscience. But do not be deceived, this type of argument does not appeal to conscience, it appeals to our own, that's why it is so effective.

9. Convincing is what is based on norms

Norms should be understood as a fairly wide set of rules that exist in society. Laws, customs, traditions, prescriptions - it is convenient for truth to rely on them. Norms can be different, from social to sanitary, from linguistic to sexual, as long as they are relevant and generally recognized.

The argument, which is used to force statesmen to respond to complaints faster, is based on the norms: “According to the federal law of 02.05. case, I will be forced to apply to the prosecutor's office to attract those responsible for the failure to meet deadlines under Art. 5.59 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “Violation of the procedure for considering citizens' appeals.”

10. Convincing is what is confirmed by authority

A more than understandable argument. Even young people who love to overthrow authorities are usually engaged in this business at the invitation of some of their authority.

Such an argument can be rude when the boss is talking to a subordinate, or it can be soft when Leonardo DiCaprio advertises watches from a billboard.

Well, it could be like this:

"Beware of morally indignant people: they have a sting of cowardly malice, hidden even from themselves."

Friedrich Nietzsche

11. Convincing is what witnesses say

The witness differs from the authority in that his opinion is interesting not because of his personality, but because of the experience that he has. Continuing the theme of advertising: luxury goods are promoted by authorities, that is, stars, and general consumer products are advertised by "witnesses" - no-names with unique experience in dealing with stains on clothes.

Example: “works because my neighbor in the stairwell was cured by homeopathy!” The strength of this argument cannot be underestimated; it is no weaker than a reference to authority.

12. Convincing is what can be presented as true

Since our brain has never been in the real world - that is, outside the cranium - it has to operate only with ideas about how everything works. Therefore, if you force the brain to imagine something, it will be almost a real fact for it. And not only for people with a developed imagination, but in general for everyone.

The argument of a real estate agent when meeting with a client in the office: “Just imagine how in the morning you admire this lake from your balcony, breathing in the fresh smells of the forest…”