What is logos in the context of persuasion? How do you use logos in a persuasive argument? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Logos, in terms of a persuasive argument, is appealing to the audience’s logic or reason. Jay Heinrichs, the author of Thank You for Arguing<\/em>, outlines four steps for using logos to your advantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here’s how to use logos in a persuasive argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The persuasive appeal, logos<\/em>, bolsters arguments meant to achieve the goal of changing your audience\u2019s mind<\/em>. Heinrichs explains that logos<\/em> helps you use your audience\u2019s logic and beliefs to make your desired choice look as advantageous as possible. <\/strong>This means presenting the argument most persuasive to your audience rather than most persuasive to you<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Shortform note: According to psychologists, nothing is more persuasive to a person than their own argument<\/em> because we have a natural preference for consistency<\/a>. In other words, we\u2019d much prefer to stick by our viewpoint than switch to a new one. By mirroring your audience\u2019s existing viewpoint, your argument circumvents this issue.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n Heinrichs explains that there are four steps to using logos <\/em>effectively: finding your audience\u2019s truism, determining the most persuasive reasoning type, defining the argument terms to your advantage, and turning your focus to the future. Here’s how to use logos to persuade your audience:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n You first need to figure out your audience\u2019s truism<\/em>: a commonly held opinion or belief that represents the audience\u2019s values. Heinrichs notes that different audiences will hold different truisms because truisms <\/strong>aren\u2019t factual<\/em><\/strong>\u2014a truism is more like a rule of thumb. <\/strong>For example, \u201cI have a lot of money\u201d is a fact. On the other hand, \u201cBeing rich is good because it means you\u2019ve worked hard\u201d is a truism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Shortform note: Whether you\u2019re aware of it or not, most advertising these days is meant to tap into your truisms. In All Marketers Are Liars<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Seth Godin explains that while older marketing models relied on marketing leading the customer\u2019s buying habits, modern marketing models let the customer<\/em> lead the marketing<\/a>. In other words, advertisers keep close tabs on your behaviors and habits to better understand your beliefs and world perspective, and then tailor their marketing campaigns<\/a> to match.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n Heinrichs cites three ways to spot your audience\u2019s truisms:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1) Repetition: <\/strong>Listen to the way your audience communicates. Often, they\u2019ll have certain terms or phrases they repeat\u2014these are their beliefs and opinions. For example, someone might say, \u201cThe candidate\u2019s honesty is refreshing. I appreciate a politician who tells it like it is. With all the misinformation in DC nowadays, you want someone who gives it to you straight.\u201d This person\u2019s truism is that perceived honesty is desirable in a candidate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Shortform note: In Difficult Conversations<\/em><\/a>, the authors note that repetition is a sign that someone feels like they\u2019re not being heard<\/a>. When you listen to\u2014and use<\/em>\u2014someone\u2019s repeated truism in your argument, you give yourself a significant leg up just by demonstrating that you\u2019ve been listening closely to them.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2) Rejection: <\/strong>If you present a choice that your audience rejects, listen to the phrases they use in rejecting you\u2014often they\u2019ll offer reasoning that reveals their truism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, you\u2019re trying to get a friend to adopt one of your pit bull\u2019s puppies. She refuses, saying, \u201cWhat\u2019ll I do when it gets big and aggressive?\u201d You explain that pit bulls aren\u2019t necessarily an aggressive breed. \u201cNo way,\u201d she says. \u201cWhat if it bites my kid?\u201d You stress that socialization and proper training prevent aggression. \u201cWell,\u201d she says, \u201ca labrador would never go after you like a pit bull would.\u201d From this exchange, you know your friend\u2019s truism: Pit bulls are a dangerous and aggressive breed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Shortform note: If your audience isn\u2019t forthcoming with their opinions, you can try to spur them on with what Kim Scott (Radical Candor<\/em><\/a>)<\/em> calls \u201cloud listening.\u201d This type of listening involves saying something that will prompt the other person to react strongly or push back on what you have to say<\/a>\u2014in all likelihood, exposing their truisms in doing so.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3) Labeling<\/a>: <\/strong>Sometimes, Heinrichs points out, people label an idea or proposition to make you feel a certain way about it. For example, politicians call tax cuts \u201ctax relief\u201d because people can generally agree on the truism, \u201cIt\u2019s a good thing to be relieved<\/em> of excessive taxes.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Shortform note: If you catch your opponent using labeling, be careful to stay focused on the central issue. Many people use labels as a \u201cred herring\u201d that distracts you from the main issue<\/a> and sends you down an unrelated argumentative path.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n Next, in an appeal based on logos<\/em>, Heinrichs says you\u2019ll use what you know of your audience\u2019s values to either use their truism to your advantage (through deductive reasoning<\/em>), or create a new truism that they can get on board with (through inductive reasoning<\/em>). <\/p>\n\n\n\n A truism is \u201cusable\u201d when the choice you offer aligns with your audience\u2019s beliefs. In these cases, you\u2019ll use deductive reasoning<\/em>, which uses the truism to demonstrate that your choice is best for them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Heinrichs advises using an argument that connects the belief with an action: \u201cBecause you believe [truism], you should [choice].\u201d <\/strong>You don\u2019t explicitly state that the choice will deliver on the opinion or belief\u2014instead, you depend on juxtaposition to prompt the audience to infer a link <\/em>between the two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, if your audience\u2019s truism is that the American health care<\/a> system should be improved, your argument might look like, \u201cIf you think the American health care system<\/a> should be improved, you should vote for the Green Party.\u201d You never state that the Green Party will do something to improve the health care system, but your audience will assume there\u2019s a link. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Shortform note: The argument that builds out of deductive reasoning is what Aristotle called the enthymeme<\/em>. The defining characteristic of an enthymeme<\/em> is that one of the premises that leads to the conclusion is omitted or implied<\/a>\u2014in the example above, the implied premise is, \u201cThe Green Party has a plan to improve the health care system.\u201d Be aware that an astute audience may pick up on the fact that the vital premise that leads to the conclusion is missing\u2014so be ready with an answer in case they ask you about it.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n A truism is \u201cunusable\u201d if a) you don\u2019t know what it is, b) it seems that your choice is far from your audience\u2019s beliefs, or c) the audience doesn\u2019t have clear shared<\/em> beliefs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In these cases, Heinrichs says, you\u2019ll need to use inductive reasoning<\/em>, or give examples through facts or storytelling that prove your choice is the best one. (You can think of this as the inverse of deductive logic\u2014whereas deductive logic views circumstances through the filter of audience belief, inductive logic creates the circumstances that form the belief<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, your audience can\u2019t agree on whether the health care system needs improvement, so you can\u2019t use it as your truism. Change your reasoning to inductive\u2014create proof<\/em> that the Green Party is the best choice: \u201cStudies show that cities with Green Party leadership have lower levels of pollution and higher levels of regular exercise. So, these cities pump fewer taxpayer dollars into Medicare and put more into education and infrastructure. I don\u2019t know about you, but I\u2019d love to see my taxes fixing our roads instead of being unnecessarily spent on preventable diseases! The Green Party can make that happen.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Shortform note: Heinrichs\u2019s section on inductive reasoning is likely an area of focus for his critics that call his suggestions manipulative or deceptive. Inductive reasoning can feel like an especially problematic aspect of rhetoric because it relies heavily on inferences and comparison between non-alike subjects\u2014thereby leading to inaccurate inferences and unfair judgments<\/a>.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n Once you\u2019ve figured out what your audience values, or you\u2019ve given<\/em> them something to value, use this knowledge to attach positively regarded terms to the concepts you\u2019re going to argue. Additionally, be careful to refuse any negative or anti-truism terms your opponent tries to place on you. Heinrichs explains that these practices help you put your argument into a context that you control. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Shortform note: Controlling the context of the argument is critical to your success because of the many subtle messages it sends to your audience<\/a>. From context, they understand how much importance to place on your argument versus your opponent\u2019s and what assumptions they can make about each person\u2019s argument. If you lose control of the context, your audience may find your opponent\u2019s argument more important and assume that their proposed choices will be better.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n Heinrichs notes several tools for tilting an argument in your favor: creating your own terms and redefining your opponent\u2019s terms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Frame issues in a way that emphasizes your audience\u2019s truisms or beliefs\u2014Heinrichs says this lends emotional impact to your argument. Attach positive and appealing terms to yourself and negative or unappealing words to your opponent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, in speaking to a fiscally conservative audience, you might call yourself \u201cfiscally responsible\u201d and your opponent \u201ca frivolous spender.\u201d In speaking to a fiscally liberal audience, you might call yourself \u201cfocused on sustainable choices\u201d and your opponent \u201cwasteful.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n If your opponent attaches certain terms to you, Heinrichs advises that you accept them, but redefine them so they work in your<\/em> favor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Imagine an opponent tries to attack your bid to increase funding for the postal service: \u201cThe postal service is outdated!\u201d You can reply, \u201cIf by \u2018outdated\u2019 you mean \u2018providing essential services to our country\u2019s citizens for decades,\u2019 then yes, it\u2019s outdated.\u201d Here, you\u2019ve turned the negative \u201coutdated\u201d label into a positive.<\/p>\n\n\n\nUse <\/strong>Logos<\/em><\/strong> to Persuade Your Audience<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Step 1: Find the Audience Truism <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Step 2: Decide On the Most Persuasive Reasoning Type<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Deductive Reasoning<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Inductive Reasoning <\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Step 3: Define Terms to Your Advantage<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Tool 1: Create Your Own Terms<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Tool 2: Redefine Your Opponent\u2019s Terms<\/h4>\n\n\n\n