1​descending or ascending way.

2​Unilateral orbilateral way.

3​Deductive or inductive way.

Top-Down Argumentationthe strongest arguments, then the less strong ones, and completes the performance with an emotional request, motivation or conclusion.

Argumentation ascending- an argument in which the speaker first gives less strong arguments, then the strongest and ends with the strongest argument.

Argumentation is one-sidedeither only arguments "for", or only arguments "against".

Argumentation is two-sided- an argument that uses arguments both for and against.

Argumentation is deductive- argumentation in which the speaker makes judgments on the principle of "from the general to the particular" (from output to arguments).

Argumentation is inductive- argumentation in which the speaker makes judgments according to the principle "from the particular to the general" (from arguments to conclusion).

Ways of presenting the material (sequential, parallel, stepped, historical, concentric)

Way of presenting the material- techniques, methods of verbal presentation, clarification and confirmation of thoughts.

historical way- presentation of the material in chronological order.

step method(stadial) - a consistent presentation of one topic after another without returning to the previous one. This way of presenting the material is very similar to the historical one. The main difference is that the stepwise method does not correspond to the logic of events, but to the logic of the movement of thought.

deductive way- presentation of the material from the general to the particular (from the thesis to its evidence). This is a way of looking for confirmation of the generalization expressed earlier.

inductive method(from Latin inductio - guidance) - a presentation of the material from the particular to the general, from facts to some hypothesis, a way of anticipating the foundation.

concentric way- the location of the material around the main problem, the transition from a general consideration of the central issue to a more specific consideration of it. With the concentric method, the main idea of ​​speech is formulated at its beginning, albeit in a general form. In the process of speech, it is substantiated, enriched, concretized, new facts and ideas appear. At the end of the speech, the speaker returns to the formulation of the main idea, clarifying it.

analogy method- a presentation from the particular to the particular (the transition of the known to the new on the basis of a comparison of various phenomena, events, facts), that is, this is a conclusion about the belonging of a certain feature to an object based on similarities in essential features with another object.

Questions for self-control:

1. Name the basic logical laws.

2. Describe the structure of the argument.

3. List the types of arguments.

4. Tell us about the ways of argumentation.

Topic 16. Logical and psychological methods of controversy

The dictionary of the modern Russian literary language defines the main meanings of the word "dispute":

1 Verbal competition, a discussion of something between two or more persons, in which each of the parties defends his opinion, his rightness. The struggle of opinions (usually in the press) on various issues of science, literature, politics, etc.; controversy.

2 Mutual claim to possession, possession of something, resolved by the court.

3 Portable. Duel, battle, single combat (mainly in poetic speech). Competition, rivalry.

Common to all meanings of the word "dispute" is the presence of disagreements, lack of consensus, confrontation.

In Russian, there are other words for the phenomenon " discussion”, “dispute”, “controversy”, “debate”, “debate”. Quite often they are used as synonyms for the word "dispute". In scientific research, in journalistic and artistic works, these words often serve as the names of certain varieties of the dispute.

D art(lat. Discussio - research, consideration, analysis) is called such a public dispute, the purpose of which is to clarify and compare different points of view, search, identify the true opinion, find the right solution to the controversial issue. The discussion is considered an effective way of persuasion, as its participants themselves come to a particular conclusion.

Word " dispute”(disputar - reason, disputatio - debate) originally meant the public defense of a scientific essay written for a degree. At present, the word "dispute" is not used in this sense. This word is called a public dispute on a scientific and socially important topic.

Word " controversy"(polemikos - means" warlike, hostile). Controversy is not just a dispute, but one in which there is a confrontation, confrontation, confrontation of sides, ideas and speeches. Based on this, controversy can be defined as a struggle of fundamentally opposite opinions on a particular issue, a public dispute in order to defend, defend one's point of view and refute the opponent's opinion.

Therefore, controversy differs from discussion, dispute precisely target orientation. The participants in the discussion, dispute, comparing conflicting judgments, try to: come to a consensus; to find common decision; establish the truth.

Controversy usually pursues the goal - to defeat the enemy, to defend and approve one's own position.

Controversy is the science of persuasion. She teaches to reinforce thoughts with convincing and undeniable arguments, scientific arguments. Controversy is especially necessary when new views are developed, universal values ​​and human rights are upheld, and public opinion is formed. It serves to foster active citizenship.

The word "debate" is of French origin (debat - dispute, debate). Debate is a Russian word recorded in the lexicon of the 17th century. Dictionary defines these words as follows: debate - debate, exchange of views on any issues, public disputes; debate - discussion of any issue, public dispute on any issues.

In the words " debate, debate”, as a rule, they refer to disputes that arise during the discussion of reports, messages, speeches at meetings, meetings, conferences, etc.

In the scientific and methodological literature, attempts are made to systematize kinds disputes. A variety of signs are taken as grounds. However, there is no single classification of disputes. To major factors that affect the nature of the dispute and its features include: the purpose of the dispute; social significance of the subject of the dispute; number of participants; form of dispute.

Purpose of the dispute. Opponents, entering into a dispute, pursue far from the same goals, are guided by different motives. By purpose distinguish the following kinds: dispute over truth; to convince someone; for victory; argument for the sake of argument.

A dispute can serve as a means of searching for truth, testing a thought, an idea for its justification.

One of dispute objectives may not be a test of truth, but the conviction of an opponent. The disputant usually convinces the opponent of what he himself is deeply convinced of.

The purpose of the dispute is not research, not persuasion, but victory. Some are convinced that they are right and remain on principled positions to the end. Others need victory for self-affirmation. Others just love to win.

Often there is an argument for the sake of an argument. For such opponents, it makes no difference what to argue about, with whom to argue, why argue.

The above classification of the types of disputes by purpose is to a certain extent conditional. In life, it is not always possible to clearly distinguish between them.

subject of dispute there are questions that reflect the common interests of mankind. In the process of a dispute, national interests, the interests of certain social strata of society may be affected. Often it is necessary to defend the group interests of people of a certain profession, collectives of individual enterprises, institutions, departments, representatives of informal associations, etc.

In a dispute, family and personal interests of the polemicists are protected. In a specific public dispute, these interests are usually interrelated and interdependent, closely intertwined.

By number of participants the following groups can be distinguished: dispute-monologue (internal dispute); dispute-dialogue (two persons argue); dispute-political scientist (conducted by several or many persons).

Disputes can take place with listeners and without listeners.

AT public life often one has to meet with a dispute for listeners. The dispute is not conducted in order to find out the truth, to convince each other, but to draw attention to the problem, to make a certain impression on the listeners, to influence in the necessary way.

Conduct form spore. Oral and written (printed). The oral form involves direct communication of specific individuals with each other, the written (printed) form - indirect communication.

Disputes organized and unorganized. Organized disputes are planned, prepared, conducted under the guidance of specialists. The polemicists have the opportunity to get to know the subject of the dispute in advance, determine their position, select the necessary arguments, and think over the answers to possible objections of the opponents. But disputes can also arise spontaneously. This often happens in the educational process, at meetings and meetings, in everyday communication. Disorganized, spontaneous disputes tend to be less productive. In such disputes, the speeches of the participants are not sufficiently reasoned, sometimes random arguments are given, not quite mature statements are heard.

The success of the dispute, its constructive nature, fruitfulness in resolving issues largely depend on the composition of the polemicists. The level of their culture, erudition, competence, life experience, possession of polemical skills and abilities, knowledge of the rules of a public dispute are of great importance.

Polemic methods. The most effective is technique "refutation of a false thesis with facts." Real events, phenomena, statistical data, the results of experimental studies, testimonies that contradict the thesis, invincibly expose refutable judgments.

Criticism of the opponent's arguments. Showing the falsity or groundlessness of the arguments, the polemist leads the listener to the idea that the thesis put forward has not been proven.

Demonstration rebuttal, i.e. revealing that the thesis of the opposite side does not logically follow from the arguments.

Humor, irony, sarcasm. They are essential elements of public speaking. These tools enhance the polemical tone of speech, its emotional impact on the listeners, help to defuse a tense situation, create a certain mood when discussing sensitive issues, and help polemicists to succeed in a dispute.

"Conclusion to Man". How a polemical device should be used in combination with other reliable and reasonable arguments. As an independent proof, it is considered a logical error, consisting in substituting the thesis itself with references to the personal qualities of the one who put it forward.

The art of answering questions The ability of speakers to correctly formulate questions and skillfully answer them largely determines the effectiveness of a public dispute. A correctly posed question makes it possible to clarify the point of view of the opponent, to obtain additional information from him, to understand his attitude to the problem under discussion. A successful answer strengthens the polemicist's own position, strengthens the argumentation of the thesis put forward.

To ask a question, you need to have an idea about the subject of discussion. To answer a question, knowledge is needed, the ability to correctly assess the content and nature of the question.

Depending on the logical structure, they usually distinguish two kinds questions - clarifying and supplementing.

Clarifying (closed) questions aimed at clarifying the truth or falsity of the judgment expressed in them. The answer to such questions, as a rule, is limited to the words: “yes” or “no”.

Replenishing (open) questions are related to the clarification of new knowledge regarding events, phenomena, objects of interest to the listener.

Simple and difficult questions. Simple questions cannot be subdivided, they do not include other questions. Difficult questions can be broken down into two or more simple ones.

Correct and incorrect questions. If the basis, prerequisites are true judgments, then the questions are considered logically correct (correctly posed). Logically incorrect (incorrectly posed) are questions that are based on false or vague judgments.

Good and bad questions. By nature they are neutral, benevolent and unfriendly, hostile, provocative. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the nature of the question by the wording of the question, by the tone of voice, in order to correctly develop tactics of behavior. Neutral and favorable questions should be answered calmly, trying to explain this or that statement as clearly as possible.

When answering unfavorable questions, one should reveal their provocative essence, expose the position of the opponent and give an open fight.

Sharp questions. During the discussion of problems, sharp questions are often raised, i.e. questions are topical, vital, fundamental. The answer to such questions requires a certain courage and appropriate psychological preparation from the speaker. It is recommended not to "lubricate" the questions posed, it is necessary to give a truthful and honest answer.

Types of responses. According to the content, correct and incorrect answers are distinguished. If the answer contains judgments that are true and logically related to the question, then it is considered correct. Incorrect, erroneous answers are those related to the question, but essentially incorrectly reflecting reality. If the answer is not related to the question, it is regarded as a "non-substantive answer" and is not considered.

In addition, there are positive answers (containing the desire to understand the questions posed) and negative answers (expressing a refusal to answer a particular question). The reason for refusal may be the lack of competence of the speaker in the area of ​​the issues raised, poor knowledge of the subject under discussion.

Apart from the dispute over the thesis and over the evidence, there is other types of dispute distinguishable from various other points of view.

Focused controversy when the arguing all the time have in mind a controversial thesis, and everything they say or cite as evidence serves to refute or defend this thesis.

Formless Spore has no such focus. It began because of some one thesis. During the exchange of objections, they seized on some argument or private thought and began to argue about it, forgetting about the first thesis. A formless dispute is always disorderly.

You can argue together, one on one. It will be a simple, single dispute. But often the dispute is between several persons, each of whom enters into the dispute either from the side of the defense of the thesis, or from the side of the attack. This will be a difficult debate.

Arguments in dispute. The choice of arguments is determined by the tasks that we set in the upcoming dispute.

Wishing to test the truth of some thought, we choose in favor of its strongest grounds.

Wanting to convince someone, we choose the arguments that should seem the most convincing to the opponent.

Wishing to defeat the enemy, we choose the arguments that most of all can put him in difficulty. Disputes for persuasion require not only the choice of arguments, corresponding to the opponent and listeners, but also the corresponding presentation of evidence.

In ordinary disputes, especially in disputes in front of listeners, it is better not to give weak arguments at all. Weak is the argument against which one can find many objections, and those which are difficult to refute.

Logical tact and manner of arguing. With regard to the opponent's arguments, a good debater must avoid two extremes: he must not persist when the opponent's argument is obvious or obviously rightly proven; he should not too easily agree with the argument of the opponent, if this argument seems to him correct.

Sometimes, from the point of view of tactics, it is advantageous to immediately admit one's mistake directly, openly and honestly: this can raise respect and a degree of trust. Bold and open, made with dignity, the realization of one's mistake involuntarily inspires respect. We must also remember that once a mistake is noticed, it can no longer be hidden. The opponent will be able to use it in its entirety.

If an argument seems to us very convincing, and we can find no objection to it, but caution still requires us to put aside agreement with it and first think about it better, then we usually resort to three methods to get out of the difficulty. The most direct is the conditional acceptance of the argument.

The most common trick is another: declaring the argument arbitrary. We demand evidence of it from the opponent, despite the fact that the argument seems to be reliable.

Finally, various tricks are often used, starting with the permissible ones, such as the usual “delaying the answer” to an argument.

Of great importance in the dispute is the manner of arguing. Here, too, there are many different varieties and shades. Some disputes are conducted "like a gentleman"; others - according to the principle: "in war - as in war"; the third - directly "in a boorish way."

Of great importance for the manner of the dispute are the ability to control oneself and the characteristics of temperament. It is extremely important whether we argue calmly, coolly, or excitedly, excitedly, furiously. Here we can say in the form of a rule: other things being approximately equal, the more cold-blooded debater always and invariably wins. He has a huge advantage: his thought is calm, clear, working with ordinary strength.

The calmness of the arguing, if it is not intentionally emphasized, often has a beneficial effect on the hot opponent, and the argument can take on a more correct form.

Persuasion of the interlocutor.First rule (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.

Strong arguments. They do not cause criticism, they cannot be refuted, destroyed, not taken into account. These are, first of all: 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 recognized in that area of ​​authority; testimonies of witnesses and eyewitnesses of events; statistical information, if its collection, processing and generalization are done by professional statisticians.

Weak arguments. They cause doubts of opponents. Such arguments include: inferences based on two or more separate facts, the connection between which is unclear without a third; tricks and judgments built on alogisms; analogies and indicative examples; arguments of a personal nature arising from circumstances or dictated by motivation, desire; tendentiously selected speeches, aphorisms; arguments, versions or messages made on the basis of conjectures, assumptions, sensations; conclusions from incomplete statistics.

Invalid 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 calculated on prejudice, ignorance; conclusions drawn from fictitious documents; advance promises and promises; false statements and testimony; forgery and falsification of what is said.

Laws of argumentation and persuasion

1 Law of embedding (embedding). Arguments should be built into the logic of the partner's reasoning, and not hammered in (breaking it), not stated in parallel.

2​The law of common language of thought. If you want to be heard, speak in the language of your opponent's main informational and representational systems.

3. The law of argument minimization. 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.

4. The law of objectivity and evidence. Use as arguments only those that your opponent accepts. Do not confuse facts and opinions.

5. Law of dialectic (unity of opposites). Talk not only about the pluses of your evidence or assumptions, but also about the minuses. By doing this, you give your arguments more weight, since the two-sided review (pluses and minuses) deprives them of lightness and disarms the opponent.

6. The law of demonstration of equality and respect . Give arguments, demonstrating respect for the opponent and his position.

8. The law of reframing. Do not reject the partner's arguments, but, recognizing their legitimacy, overestimate their strength and significance. Increase the significance of losses in case of accepting his position or reduce the significance of benefits expected by the partner.

9. The law of gradualness. Do not try to quickly convince your opponent, it is better to take gradual but consistent steps.

10. The law of feedback. 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.

11. The law of ethics. In the process of argumentation, do not allow unethical behavior (aggression, deceit, arrogance, manipulation, etc.), do not touch the "sore spots" of the opponent.

The second rule (Socratic rule). To get a positive decision on an important issue for you, put it in third place, prefixing it with two short, simple questions for the interlocutor.

The third rule (Pascal's rule)."Do not drive the interlocutor into a corner." Give him the opportunity to "save face", to preserve dignity.

And a few more rules:

The persuasiveness of arguments largely depends on the image and status of the persuasive. A high official or social position, competence, authority, support of the team raises the status of a person and the degree of persuasiveness of his arguments.

Do not drive yourself into a corner, do not lower your status by showing signs of insecurity.

Do not belittle the status of the interlocutor, because any manifestation of disrespect, disregard for the interlocutor causes a negative reaction.

We treat the arguments of a pleasant interlocutor favorably, while we treat the arguments of an unpleasant one with prejudice. A good impression is created by many factors: a respectful attitude, the ability to listen, competent speech, pleasant manners, appearance, etc.

Wanting to convince, start not with the moments that separate you, but with what you agree with your opponent.

Show empathy, try to understand the emotional state of another person, imagine the course of his thoughts, put yourself in his place, empathize with him.

Be a good listener to understand the train of thought of the interlocutor.

Check if you understand the interlocutor correctly.

Avoid words, actions that can lead to conflict.

Watch facial expressions, gestures, postures - yours and the interlocutor.

To increase the effectiveness of interaction and understanding of the interlocutor, it is important to be able to timely notice and take into account body signals for typical situations and negotiations.

Questions for self-control:

1. What is a dispute? What is its value?

3. What is a discussion?

4. What is controversy? List its main characteristics.

5. What do you know about the strategy and tactics of the dispute?

Argumentation (from Latin argumentatio - bringing an argument) is a logical process during which the truth of a position is derived from the truth of an argument. Argument is an integral part of any proof.
The logical structure of the proof consists of three interrelated elements: 1) thesis; 2) arguments; 3) demonstrations.
When submitting a thesis, you must adhere to the following rules:
1) the thesis must be clearly formulated;
2) the thesis must remain unchanged throughout the proof;
3) the thesis should not contain a logical contradiction.

Types of evidence in oratory

Oratory uses direct and indirect evidence.
A proof is called direct, in which the truth of the thesis is justified by arguments without the help of additional constructions. For example, the dating of an old Russian manuscript of the 10th-12th centuries. can be proved by pointing out that it was written by an early charter (this type of writing was not used at other times); the presence of the suspect at the scene of the crime is proved by fingerprints.
Indirect evidence is usually realized in an apagogic version, which means “proof from the contrary” in this case, in addition to arguments in defense of the thesis put forward, an antithesis is also given: the proof “is carried out by establishing the falsity of a judgment that contradicts the thesis”. In public speech, circumstantial evidence has a greater effect than direct evidence in the forehead.
The polemic also uses this kind of apagogic proof, reductioabsurdum - reduction to absurdity. This is proof of the impossibility, the absurdity of the assumption of something. The famous philosopher I. Kant believed that the reproach of absurdity is always a personal censure that must be avoided, especially when refuting delusions.
In the process of proof, the speaker uses various arguments - arguments given in support of the thesis.
It is important to consider the logic requirements for arguments:
1) the arguments must be true (false arguments cannot prove the main idea);
2) the arguments must be sufficient for this thesis;
3) the truth of the arguments must be proven regardless of the thesis.
If the thesis is proved by false arguments, passing them off as true, a logical error arises - “false reason”. This mistake may be unintentional, but often it is deliberately used by unscrupulous politicians and economists. Then the juggling of numbers, distortion of statistical data, reference to non-existent documents is used. The error of "false reason" has a direct connection with another logical error - "anticipation of the reason." An unproven judgment is taken as an argument, it is used as a basis for a conclusion. This proposition cannot be considered deliberately false, but it itself needs proof in order to clarify the truth.
The error called "lack of reason" leads to a violation of the second rule of argumentation. The arguments given for the proof do not look convincing enough. So, to solve environmental problems, it is proposed not a set of well-thought-out measures, but another “lifeline” (for example, replacing project managers).
A logical fallacy, called the "vicious circle", occurs if the thesis is proved by arguments that are derived from the same thesis. Here is a convincing illustration of such a mistake.
AT Russian Academy Sciences Lomonosov asked Schumacher a question about why there are few Russian students in the academy. Schumacher explained this by the small number of professors who speak Russian. When Lomonosov was indignant at the fact that there were few Russian professors in the academy. Schumacher referred to the small number of Russian students.
Arguments are usually divided into two groups: logical (in ancient times they were called "arguments to the case") and psychological ("arguments to the person"). It is also traditional for rhetoric to distinguish between artificial and natural evidence. Artificial proofs are logical, they require the ability to reason. They resort to them in the absence of witnesses. Natural evidence is facts, documents.
Testimony that convinces in itself. Natural evidence is the most weighty, as it is based on eyewitness accounts, documents (forensic examination, doctor's certificate, protocol record of witnesses). This evidence is irrefutable when reconstructing events and evokes a heated emotional response from listeners.
Indirectly, documents can be presented as evidence. And then the facts reflected in the documents are used as part of the reasoning that is used in artificial evidence.
In the development of the theory of logical argumentation, Aristotelian syllogistics, the science of deriving inferences, played an important role.
Syllogism is a type of deductive reasoning. It consists of two categorical judgments. The first of them is the "large premise", the second is the "smaller premise". From these two judgments a new judgment is derived, which is called a conclusion. For example: Every experienced speaker knows how to convince his listeners, and Metropolitan Kirill has the gift of persuasion, therefore, he can be considered an experienced speaker. If we write down the syllogism, then the first two judgments are located one below the other, and the new one - the conclusion is separated from them by a line and written under them:
An experienced speaker knows how to convince listeners (big premise).
Metropolitan Kirill knows how to convince his listeners (minor premise).
Metropolitan Kirill is an experienced orator (conclusion).
The horizontal line between the second and third lines of the syllogism is the "signal" of the transition from premises to conclusion. Both premises serve as grounds on the basis of which it can be argued that the conclusion is true.
A simple categorical syllogism can often be found in everyday and business speech. We use syllogisms without noticing it and without thinking about this phenomenon. Here's a compelling example from a televised debate.
The facilitator states: “Every professional manager has the right to lead an enterprise. Sergey Petrov is a professional manager, therefore, he has the right to head a large enterprise.”
In this business speech, we see a clear construction of a simple categorical syllogism.
Simple reasoning Aristotle called enthymeme. An enthymeme is a categorical syllogism in which one of the premises or a conclusion is omitted. According to Aristotle, enthymemes form the basis of belief. They are more characteristic of rhetorical argument, since people usually do not speak in complete syllogisms. Speech saturated with them would be difficult to perceive, monotonous and inexpressive, and reasoning based on enthymeme makes speech lively and dynamic. So. instead of a complete syllogism about the orator Metropolitan Kirill, one can construct an enthymeme: Metropolitan Kirill is an experienced orator and therefore can convince listeners. Comparing the full syllogism with this enthymeme, we note that a large premise is missing: there is no line that an experienced (thinking) speaker can convince listeners. If we skip the smaller premise, we get the following scenario: A thinking orator knows how to convince his listeners, while Metropolitan Kirill is an experienced orator. The enthymeme can be read without a conclusion; let's omit it: An experienced orator knows how to convince his listeners, and Metropolitan Kirill also knows how to convince.
An enthymeme is an abbreviated syllogism. It is possible to omit any of its constituent parts provided that the content of the statement has not changed and is clear to the listeners.
Usually, an enthymeme is a well-known provision that does not require proof and comments. This explains the use of abbreviated syllogisms in everyday speech. For the sake of persuasiveness of what has been said, let us turn to the judgment from the TV debates. Let's represent it as a series of separate enthymemes.
1. Sergey Petrov - professional manager, has the right to manage the enterprise. (Large package missing.)
2. Every professional manager has the right to lead the enterprise, and Sergey Petrov has the right to lead. (Less premise omitted.)
3. Each professional manager has the right to manage the enterprise, and Sergey Petrov is a professional manager. (Conclusion omitted.)
We constantly hear such proposals - enthymemes in business, deliberative speech, in everyday life.
The logical order of argumentation is based on the fact that the proof is built in the form of a chain of inferences leading to a single conclusion.

Argumentation methods

Boolean Methods presentations of the material can be classified as inductive and deductive. Deductive we call such a development of the message, when they go from the general to the particular. In philosophy and rhetoric, this method is considered as a method of searching for confirmations of the earlier generalization. The speaker has the opportunity to invite the audience to go through the path of knowing some particular through the general. Deduction as a method of presentation presupposes such a construction that leads from the effect to the cause (the principle of the composition of a detective novel). This is its attraction to the audience.
The inductive method of presentation involves the movement of thought from the particular to the general. The path to generalization runs through a series of single or particular factors. Induction as a form of inference also originated in antiquity. As Aristotle emphasized, "induction is convincing and simple, and from the point of view of sensory knowledge is more advantageous and accessible." In rhetoric and philosophy, induction is called the method of anticipating a foundation. This means that special cases, individual facts lead to a certain pattern (logical basis). The inductive method of presentation from facts to generalization activates the attention of listeners, therefore it is indispensable in conditions oral propaganda, rally speech. Effective induction for speeches in an insufficiently prepared audience.
An inference very close to induction is an analogy. Analogy is translated from Greek as "similarity, likeness". The analogy method involves a comparison of facts, phenomena, events. The new can be comprehended, understood only through the images of the old, known. Analogies play a huge role in cognition, as they lead to the formation of hypotheses, i.e. scientific assumptions and conjectures. An analogy with what is already known helps to understand what is unknown. An analogy sometimes allows you to tell more about an object than its longest description.
A classic example of the analogy of reasoning about life on Mars.
There are many similarities between Mars and Earth: they are planets of the solar system, both have water and an atmosphere, almost the same temperature on their surface, etc. Since Mars is similar to Earth in terms of the conditions necessary for life, it means that life is possible on Mars.
However, reasoning by analogy still does not give reliable knowledge.
When using analogy in speech, the following rules must be observed:
1) analogy should be based not on superficial features, but on the essential properties of objects, phenomena;
2) general properties should characterize phenomena from different angles;
3) it is necessary to establish not only the similarity, but also the features of the difference of phenomena.

Rules for Effective Argumentation

To make an argument convincing, the speaker should operate with facts. "The most reliable kind of argument is facts."
Facts that are close and understandable to people are perceived by them as reliable information. An experienced speaker knows how to present factual material. What conditions for the effectiveness of a fact must be taken into account in a public speech? First of all, it is the reliability of the factual material. The rhetorician must cultivate the habit of carefully checking and rechecking the truth of the facts. The use of unverified, inaccurate or false information undermines the credibility of the speaker and his speech. The second important condition for the professional use of facts is their consistency. Facts only in their totality help to reveal this or that phenomenon, to show its organic connection with reality. Let us turn to the sad experience of propaganda in the USSR.
The media reported on the success Agriculture and collective farmers fled from the villages to the city. The most necessary goods became scarce, the housing problem became more and more difficult to solve, and the people were told about the growth in the consumption of meat, milk, they gave “inflated” figures about the commissioning square meters housing. All this false information given in the media. couldn't convince people.
It is necessary to take into account the appropriateness of using factual material, i.e. its correspondence to the interests, educational level of students, connection with everyday practice. The audience always has a special interest in a speech that talks about a local business, familiar people, problems. The relevance of a fact is manifested in its logical connection with the problem under discussion.
The completeness and evidence of the facts is the main task of the orator, who makes sure that his speech is convincing. The use of illustrative examples helps to activate the consciousness of the listeners and will give the speech persuasiveness, because often people remember what was discussed only by examples, forgetting other fragments of the speech.
Referring to the facts, the speaker often operates with figures: they are also used as strong evidence. The modern audience is accustomed to the language of numbers, so statistics should be recognized as one of the most important means of proof. But the speaker needs to skillfully introduce figures into speech, not to abuse them. Statistical tables should not be given in speeches, because any table is designed for visual perception. Experienced speakers suggest rounding numbers, then they are better perceived by ear. You should not just name or list the numbers, you need to present them brighter, more convincingly. To do this, the numbers need to be analyzed, compared, weighed.
The role of convincing arguments can be performed by diagrams, illustrations, photographs, posters, tables. A well-designed diagram or table will help the speaker explain in a few minutes what would take an hour and a large number of words. Visual aids will help the audience to “see” the phenomena and processes behind the numbers.

Topic 9. Argumentation

Thesis and arguments

speaker in public speaking argues a certain point of view, that is, it carries out an argument.

Under argumentation is understood as the process of bringing evidence, explanations, examples to justify any thought in front of the audience or the interlocutor.

Thesis- this is the main idea (of a text or speech), expressed in words, this is the main statement of the speaker, which he tries to substantiate, prove.

Arguments- this is evidence given in support of the thesis: facts, examples, statements, explanations, in a word, everything that can confirm the thesis.

From the thesis to the arguments, you can ask the question “Why?”, And the arguments answer: “Because.”

For example:

"It's good to watch TV" - thesis our performance. Why?

Arguments- because:

1. On TV we learn the news.

2. The weather forecast is on TV.

3. We watch educational programs on TV.

4. Interesting films are shown on TV, etc.

The arguments that the speaker gives are of two types: arguments "for" (for his thesis) and arguments "against" (against someone else's thesis).

Arguments "for" should be:

accessible, simple and understandable;

as close as possible to the opinions established in the audience,

Reflect objective reality, comply with common sense

Arguments against should:

Convince the audience that the arguments given in support of the thesis you are criticizing are weak and do not stand up to scrutiny

Important rule of reasoning: arguments must be given in the system. This means that you need to think about which arguments to start with and which ones to end with.

Persuasiveness of arguments

Arguments must be convincing, that is, strong, with which everyone agrees. The strength, persuasiveness of an argument is a relative concept, since much depends on the situation, the emotional and mental state of the listeners and other factors - their gender, age, profession, etc. However, there are a number of typical arguments that are considered strong in most cases.

These arguments usually include:

scientific axioms

Provisions of laws and official documents

· Nature laws

conclusions confirmed experimentally

eyewitness testimony

· statistical data

In ancient times, such arguments included evidence obtained under torture.

It should also be borne in mind that weak arguments with descending argumentation look better than with other methods of argumentation: as E. A. Yunina and G. M. Sagach note, “if “weak” arguments are used as a complement to “strong” ones (and not as relatively independent), then the degree of their "weakness" decreases, and vice versa.

Sometimes people think that the most important thing in argumentation is to find as many proofs and arguments as possible. But that's not exactly how. A Latin proverb says: "Evidence should not be counted, but weighed." There is a proverb: who proves a lot, he proves nothing. The most important thing is to think through each evidence: how convincing it is for a given audience, how serious it is.

The optimal number of arguments is three

Starting from the fourth argument, the audience often perceives the argumentation no longer as a certain system (first, second, and finally third), but as "many" arguments; at the same time, the impression often arises that the speaker is trying to put pressure on the audience, “persuade”. Let's remember the proverb again: who proves a lot, he proves nothing. So, "many" arguments in an oral presentation usually begin with the fourth argument.

Argumentation rules

1. Determine the topic of your speech and formulate it.

For example: “I want to talk about .....”, “Today I am interested in the question of ....”, “There is such a problem -...”, etc.

2. Formulate the main thesis of your speech. Express it in words.

For example: "It seems to me that ...., and here's why."

3. Pick up arguments to support your thesis.

4. Organize the arguments - arrange them in a certain order: first, second, third, etc.

5. If necessary, refute the opposite thesis by giving arguments against it.

6. Draw a conclusion.

Methods of argumentation

There are several ways to argue.

1. Descending and ascending argumentation

These methods of argumentation differ in whether the argument strengthens or weakens by the end of the speech.

descending argumentation lies in the fact that at first the speaker gives the strongest arguments, then less strong ones, and ends with an emotional request, motivation or conclusion. According to this principle, for example, a statement will be built asking for help in solving the housing problem: “Please pay attention to my plight with housing. I live ... I have ... I ask you to provide me with housing.

Rising argumentation suggests that the argumentation and intensity of feelings intensify towards the end of the speech. For example, the following speech is based on this principle: “There are a lot of old people in our city ... They usually live on small pensions ... Pensions are always delayed ... Life is constantly becoming more expensive ... The state with the provision help pensioners can not cope ... Who will help the elderly? ... A lot of the elderly need urgent help now ... We must immediately create a special service to help them.

2. One-sided and two-sided argumentation

One-sided the speaker's argumentation of his position assumes that either only the arguments "for" are stated, or only the arguments "against" are stated. At bilateral argumentation to the listener, setting out opposing points of view, make it possible to compare, choose one of several points of view. A variation of the method of bilateral argumentation is the so-called method of counter-argumentation, when the speaker presents his arguments as a refutation of the opponent's arguments, having previously stated them. For example: "They say that we do not know how to work, are not able to manage ... Well, let's look at the facts .." - and then this thesis is refuted.

3. Refuting and supporting arguments

At refuting argumentation, the speaker destroys the real or possible counter-arguments of a real or "invented" opponent. At the same time, positive arguments are either not given at all, or they are given very little attention in the process of speaking. At supportive argumentation, the speaker puts forward only positive arguments, and ignores counterarguments.

4. Deductive - from conclusion to arguments and inductive - from arguments to conclusion

Argumentation from output to arguments - First, the thesis is given, and then it is explained by arguments.

For example:

We need to teach the Russian language better. First, the literacy of schoolchildren is declining. Secondly, we pay little attention to improving adult literacy. Thirdly, our journalists and TV presenters do not speak Russian well. Fourth....etc.

Argumentation from argument to conclusion Arguments first, then output.

for example:

Consider the state of the Russian language. Our schoolchildren's literacy is declining; little attention is paid to adult literacy; our journalists and TV presenters do not speak Russian well, and so on. Thus, we need to teach the Russian language better.

AT different audiences are effective different types argumentation.

Rules for Effective Argumentation

Be emotional

The emotionality of the speaker must necessarily be obvious to the audience, but it should not dominate the very content of his speech. In this regard, the following rule should be followed:

Refer to facts and examples that evoke emotions,

not to the emotions themselves

Do not abuse logical pressure

Of course, logic should be present in the argument, but it is better to “hide” logic behind the emotional form of presentation, concrete examples, humor, etc.

Address facts vital to listeners

Speaking to any audience, try to find and explain to the audience the reason why it should be important for them what you are going to tell them about: “the neighbor’s son will get drug addicted, and you will pay for the treatment,” etc.

Try to show the real benefit for the listeners from your assumptions or information - what they can do, get - down to the details: “this will help you gain health”, “I will teach you to remain calm in critical situations”, “you will learn today how you can live for the minimum wage, etc. Before the speech, you need to think carefully about what practical benefits the listeners should get from your speech, and inform them about it.

It is important who manages the argument, for what purpose - good or bad, and who is the object of the experiment - an optimist or a whiner?

… Have you ever had to go to bed hungry with money in your pocket? And it's all to blame Her Majesty Argument- with strong arguments, stunning results and fateful consequences.

An exercise

Based real history below, define the reasoning, feedback, physical and psychological effect. Give a professional assessment of events. Will the owner's business work? Give similar examples from other areas of life. Why do negotiations of different status have identical laws?

"This is not JRIO de Janeiro"

One autumn in one of the St. Petersburg restaurants, I got into a conversation with an entrepreneur from Khabarovsk. Stepan weighed somewhere under 80 kg, was not full, but very well-fed, and, as I noticed, he studied the menu with passion. Word for word, this is how the story came to be:

You won’t believe it, but in July I weighed all 110. And I started gaining weight last year, and quite sharply. In winter, the wife began to squeal - fat-bellied ... who do you look like ... in general, brought ...

Of course, I went to our Siberian charlatans, tried everything - and shish! In the end, they took me to one office, modestly called “Dietologist” CJSC.
The director, such a figured madam of about forty, immediately says: “We undertake to solve your problem, but the service is expensive and will require not only money, but also time from you - twenty days without going out in our boarding house. If you agree, twenty-five thousand to the cashier and start on Monday.
I soared, what is this, one piece per day, what kind of boarding house, "Hilton" was built in our taiga? What are the guarantees, I ask?

She replies: "At the end of the course, you will stand on the scales. If you lose less than twenty kilograms, we will return all the money and apologize."

I really found this clause in the contract - well, I fit into this business.

So, I dropped twenty-five and still, in my opinion, I'm losing weight, I can't wake up. This is the Gestapo, not a boarding house.
They brought me to such a quiet mansion about three floors, behind a high fence, took me to the hall, handed me a magnetic card and closed the doors.

I waited two hours for someone to come out, invite me to procedures or whatever. So he did not wait - he began to break into the first door that came across. There was such a spring in the door that I squeezed in there in just three steps. And this was the toilet. It took me ten minutes to get out of it.

And people have already arrived in the hall, about seven men.

They say, "We are also experimental subjects, we have come to be treated." They warned that now there will be lunch, but not for everyone, but for those who insert their magnetic card into a slot on the ceiling.

My eyes popped out of my head - 10 meters up the rope, no less. The last time I climbed a rope was in the sixth grade. I shout: "Guys, someone get down for me, I will not remain in debt, I will burst into tears in the city." And they sternly answer me like this: "We ourselves are not poor people, but here there are video cameras everywhere. They will leave you for a day without food at all!"

And they climbed themselves - cheerfully so, almost with songs.

I didn't get to eat that day. But I honestly worked out the five "o" clock - I inserted the card into a filthy simulator and squeezed out two hundred times seventy kilos. The simulator gave me another card, a disposable one, which was supposed to be put into the feeder on the second floor - how I got there, by the way, is another story.

All the doors in this boarding house had springs like shock absorbers from the KamAZ - you could only walk in pairs, otherwise you wouldn’t open it. Ladders are generally atas, through a step there is a hole, you have to jump. Well, in general, there are a lot of jokes.

And the most fun began in the evenings. Boring things, no books, no magazines, but there is a TV in the lobby. But he, the bastard, works only from an exercise bike, a dynamo is connected there, to generate electricity. And you need to turn it quickly, a normal person can stand it for ten minutes and fall.

And so, in order to at least watch the news in the evening, we wound up there in turn, like idiots. And if a good action movie was promised in the announcement, and even a two-episode one, they played it until they were blue in the face.

In short, when they came to pick us up, we almost killed the driver right on the bus. They regretted it, however, he shouted that he was an outsider, he had nothing to do with this concentration camp.

And they arrived at the office, the hostess tells us - get on the scales, fat-bellies. I weighed myself and gasped - twenty-five in twenty days.

And so they taught me there - now I can’t live without a gym, I run to the gym two or three times a week. Like a monkey, by golly.

What are your feelings? Well, we laughed, that's understandable.

Which business valuation do you like best?

• pathological business;
• new Russian business;
• Russian business with an American accent;
• cruel and enterprising women's business;
• just a women's business;
• just business…etc.

Argumentation strategies

With a variety of forms of argumentation, four strategies can be outlined, which partially intersect with national-cultural styles, are based on various teaching traditions, or are a continuation of individual style behavior.

Argumentation strategies are aimed at taking the right course when setting key objectives, and methods and techniques are aimed at gaining the upper hand when discussing key issues in the negotiation process.

1.Traditional was developed in the schools of ancient rhetoric.

To use this strategy, it is enough to get answers to the questions:

"what do you offer?",
"how can you understand this sentence?",
Is the sentence simple or compound?
"what parts does it consist of?",
"what are the reasons that prompted to make such a proposal, and what are the consequences?",
"How can you compare this offer with others?"

It is obvious that such a strategy assumes the presence of a sufficient margin of time and is aimed at increasing awareness. If we go back to the three planes of the stage, then the arguments of the second plan are most often used in this strategy - public opinion and crowds.

2. Eastern, or intuitive(its second name) is based on the use of psychological techniques that involve such features of thinking as associativity, understanding of figurative meaning, abstract statement or metaphor.

This strategy is largely based on the third plan and contains ambiguity, directed both towards the direct goal of the negotiations, and towards personal deep feelings.
A statement by Confucius or an indication of a historical analogy may, within the framework of such an argument, carry an element of impact that is not available to a bearer of another cultural tradition.

3. European- the analytical system of argumentation grows out of rationalistic philosophy, which is characterized by the division of the main content into parts in accordance with common sense, code, rules or norms.

Such argumentation is most aimed at eliminating any possible contradictions precisely in the first plan, in terms of the ratio of practical benefits:

You are building a chemical plant - this is in conflict with environmental guidelines. But the "contradiction" is removed if the chemical plant will produce components of compounds used to solve environmental problems. The use of the third psychological plane in the European tradition is declaratively forbidden as unworthy and inconsistent with the concept of honor.

4. pragmatic- characteristic, according to our observations, for the American style, draws a clear line between speech and practical behavior. The price of words, especially spoken by a person interested in the outcome of the case, is usually low. However, this does not interfere with the rhetorically magnificent design of speech behavior. Such a strategy is especially often present where there is a clear advantage in strength and where powerful capital, a strong fist or a Colt's barrel are always visible behind the arguments. Such reasoning is used solely for ritual purposes and to maintain the rules of the game.

One wisdom for all

All strategies of argumentation bask in the same sun. If this "sun" is negotiation, then it must be wise negotiation. If swords are crossed during the negotiation process, it must be done in the right way.

For example, when choosing an argumentation strategy for your negotiation, try not to:

• interrupt, attack, accuse;
• count wins and losses;
• to be smart, verbose, "knock down" the counterparty from the thought;
• being sarcastic and threatening.

The main thing is tact, wisdom and "no" aggression. Wisdom lies in "not igniting". If the proposals of the other side are unacceptable to you, answer evasively:

"We'll think about it. This should be discussed in a narrow circle. Perhaps you have a number of proposals in reserve. Obviously, you need time to formulate them. It is important for us to think about the package of your proposals."

(For more on how to avoid answering, see my books Self-Management and Cultivation School.)

Methods and techniques of argumentation

Both in evidence-based argumentation and in counter-argumentation - the two components of the argumentation process - the same techniques are used: a thorough study of the subject, facts and information; exclusion of possible contradictions and alogisms; formulating clear, logical conclusions.

The best arguments are those based on clear and logical reasoning, on a good knowledge of the details and circumstances, and on a predictive ability to accurately and specifically foresee the main scenarios for the development of a conversation.

Classic take. It is a direct appeal to a partner whom we introduce to the facts and information that are the basis of our proof, or - if we are talking about counterarguments - we dispute and refute his arguments. If we have succeeded in casting doubt on the facts presented by him, then our position becomes much more convincing and stronger.

Numbers are very useful here - the perfect backdrop for our ideas and arguments. Skillfully presented, they always look convincing. Digital data is reliable evidence. However, there should not be too many of them. In addition, figures should be presented in a form that is as relevant as possible to the objectives.

contradiction method. Based on the identification of contradictions in the argument of the interlocutor. Our own argumentation must be consistent in order to prevent our partner from taking advantage of this, but the contradictions in his argumentation cannot be left unnoticed. By its nature, this method is defensive. In response to the interlocutor's arguments, one can answer by identifying a weak point in them, something like this: "If it is true that, as you say, the standard of living has now decreased, then it is also true that there are much more opportunities to earn money today than before."

"Timely translation of the arrow." This technique is quite simple and applicable to a partner with an analytical mindset. When he makes a statement or advocates a plan that you can prove wrong, take your time to lay out the facts and celebrate the victory. Instead, ask a question like, "Could you elaborate on exactly what will happen if we accept your plan?" The tone should be friendly, because if the partner feels a challenge, malice or gloating in this matter, then most likely you will not achieve anything. After asking a question, wait, do not interrupt your partner's reasoning caused by the question. The partner himself will discover contradictions or incorrectly used data in his reasoning. By giving him the emotionally neutral task of rechecking logic and facts once again, you set in motion a powerful "analytical meat grinder" that grinds its arguments and evidence just as ruthlessly as your arguments. The atmosphere is important here, when the partner does not need to defend his logic or prove that his plan is the best. You create it with thoughtful wording and the tone of the question. If you, patiently waiting for the moment of discovery by a partner weaknesses in his own constructions, you will be able to satisfy his need for new facts, the probability of resolving the issue in your favor will greatly increase.

"Deriving Conclusions". It is a precise argument that gradually, step by step, through partial conclusions, brings us to the desired final conclusion. When counterarguing, this means refuting the partner’s erroneous conclusions or demanding logically correct and impeccable evidence. True, to demand from the interlocutor evidence that he this moment cannot provide, incorrectly, although in principle it is possible.

It should be noted that in communication in general, and in business conversations in particular, sometimes there is a substitution of bases and concepts. As a result, formally correct, but, in fact, false conclusions are possible. If experienced people use this technique, it is not so easy to recognize their trick.

An obvious example is a dialogue in a physics class. The teacher asked the student: "What do you know about the properties of heat and cold?" He replied: "In heat, all bodies expand, and in cold, they decrease." "That's right," the teacher remarked, "and now give me examples." The student was not at a loss: "It is warm in summer, so the days are longer, and in winter it is cold - and the days are shorter."

Comparison. This method is a variant of the "drawing conclusions" method. It is very effective, especially when the comparisons are well chosen. Comparisons can be short, lengthy, factual or fictional, serious or humorous. A comparison that evokes an idea of ​​the subject as a whole is called a metaphor.

"His words were an oasis in the desert of social chatter."
"The path of human progress is not a racing track."

A comparison in which two or more things are related in one or more respects is called an analogy. Analogies are figurative and literal. A figurative analogy compares two sets of phenomena of a different order or from different areas, pointing to their symbolic connection.

"It's hard to define what democracy is. It's like a giraffe. Once you look, you won't confuse it with anything else."

Analogy literally compares the phenomena of one area, one order.

"Air conditioning has raised productivity at the Podolsk artificial fiber factory, so it will raise productivity at the Samara factory as well."

A comparison that is a form of opposition or contrast and contains seemingly incompatible statements is called a paradox.

"The ambassador is a decent person who is sent abroad to lie in the interests of the Fatherland."

If comparisons are specific, novel, and lucid, they make your arguments clearer, more interesting, and more persuasive. They stimulate the interlocutor's thought, explain the unusual, arouse interest in the familiar.

"Civilization is like a lending library. Progress from generation to generation is possible only because we borrow everything already learned and inherited by previous generations - dilapidated and New testaments, the Copernican system, the printing press, the canons of art, chemical formulas, moral laws, etc. "

"There are more atoms in one liter of water than there are such liters in the oceans of the whole world."

“More than once, in many battles, they watched how cavalry horses, having lost their riders, gathered together and made their usual movements along the signal horn ... People who had grown old in prison, after they received their freedom, asked to go back to prison. During the train crash the cage with the tiger was broken in. It is said that the tiger, unharmed in the least, jumped out of its cage and crawled into it again, as if a new, unusual situation without the usual comforts puzzled
him "(W. James).

"What really is an honest business man? This, of course, is not the one to whom it costs nothing to lie. But also not the one who, being a decent person, at other times will lie to save his wallet, reputation or even his head".

The "yes... but" method. You already know him from the first part. This technique is used in different variations. AT this case the argumentation technique is used as follows: if you do not agree with your partner from the very beginning and enter into an argument as soon as you hear the first arguments of the opponent, then by doing so you demonstrate your negative attitude, which is unlikely to arouse his enthusiasm. You will most likely mess things up.

The "yes... but" method allows you to gracefully refute your partner's argument. You should pay special attention to the fact that your "yes ..." should not be formal. It is such if it is visible to the naked eye that it will be followed by denial and disagreement. This is . You can't influence an experienced partner like that. An informal "yes..." is when you fill it with real content. You can say that you certainly agree with such a formulation of the question, that the facts given by the partner are impeccable, and the logic built by him is absolutely impeccable. And only then comes the turn "but ...". With this "but ..." you can completely disavow everything that you just said, offer your arguments, and it will be much better if you immediately began to demonstrate your disagreement. At the same time, the design of your argumentation should be such that it could, if possible, prevent the use of this method by the interlocutor by refuting his possible arguments.

The necessary decisions are not always made by us, very often important decisions for us are made by other people. Even if they are subordinates, they can also "do things", what can we say about business partners. The conclusion is simple - we need to convey our beliefs, the method of arguments and arguments is the most correct and open way to influence the decision-making of another person.

Management decisions, argumentation tactics.

Argumentation

the most difficult phase of persuasion. It requires knowledge, concentration, endurance, presence of mind, assertiveness and correctness of statements, the need to master the material and clearly define the task. At the same time, we should not forget that we depend on the interlocutor, because it is he who, in the end, decides whether he accepts our arguments or not.

Persuasive influence on partners in business communication is achieved through argumentation. 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 structure - thesis, arguments and demonstration.

Thesis is the formulation of your position (your opinion, your proposal to the other party, etc.).

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

Demonstration- this is the connection of the thesis and argument (i.e., the process of proving, persuading).

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:

Rules for Success in Business Communication

• use simple, clear, precise and convincing terms;
• tell the truth; if you are not sure that the information is true, do not use it until you check it;
• the pace and methods of argumentation should be chosen taking into account the characteristics of the character and habits of the interlocutor;
• the argument must be correct in relation to the interlocutor. Refrain from personal attacks on those who disagree with you;
• 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.

Bizkiev

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:

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.

In modern scientific and educational literature, many methods of argumentation are covered. Consider the most important, in our opinion, for situations of business communication.

1. Fundamental Method of Argument. 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, unlike the information stated in words - often controversial! - the figures look more convincing: this source is usually more objective and therefore attractive.

When using statistics, it is necessary 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 in argumentation. 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:

"- Perfectly! Rudin said. - So, in your opinion, there are no 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 in argumentation. 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 of argumentation "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 argumentation "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 a variety of points of view here”, “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 of argumentation. 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 argumentation "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 argumentation "conclusions". It is based on a gradual subjective change in the merits of the case.

Example: "Wealth has no boundaries when it goes abroad in large amounts"; “The small fry knows best who will get the profit. But who will listen to the small fry?

9. Method of argumentation "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 provisions 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.

Rules for the argumentation of managerial decisions

1. Operate with simple, clear, precise and convincing concepts, since persuasiveness can be easily "drowned" in a sea of ​​words and arguments, especially if they are unclear and inaccurate; the interlocutor "hears" or understands much less than he wants to show.

2. The method and pace of argumentation must correspond to the temperament of the performer:

• arguments and evidence, explained separately, reach the goal much more effectively than if they were presented all at once;
• three or four bright arguments achieve a greater effect than many average arguments;
• argumentation should not be declarative or look like a monologue of the "protagonist";
• well-placed pauses often have more impact than the flow of words;
• the interlocutor is better influenced by the active construction of the phrase than the passive one when it comes to evidence (for example, it is better to say “we will do it” than “it can be done”, it is more appropriate to say “conclude” than “make a conclusion”).

3. Conduct arguments should be correct in relation to the employee. It means:

• always openly admit that he is right when he is right, even if this may have adverse consequences for you. This gives your interlocutor the opportunity to expect the same behavior from the performing side. Also, by doing so, you are not violating the ethics of management;
• you can continue to operate only with those arguments that are accepted by the employee;
• avoid empty phrases, they indicate a weakening of attention and lead to unnecessary pauses in order to gain time and catch the lost thread of the conversation (for example, “as was said”, “or, in other words”, “more or less”, “along with the noted” , “it is possible both so and so”, “it was not said”, etc.).

4. It is necessary to adapt the arguments to the personality of the performer, i.e.:

• build an argument taking into account the goals and motives of the interlocutor;
• do not forget that “excessive” persuasiveness causes a rebuff from the subordinate, especially if he has an “aggressive” nature (“boomerang” effect);
• avoid non-business expressions and formulations that make argumentation and understanding difficult;
• try to present your evidence, ideas and considerations to the employee as clearly as possible. Remember the proverb: "It is better to see once than hear a hundred times." When making vivid comparisons and demonstrative arguments, it is important to remember that comparisons should be based on the performer’s experience, otherwise there will be no result, they should support and strengthen the manager’s argument, be convincing, but without exaggerations and extremes that cause distrust of the performer and thereby put under doubt all the parallels being drawn.

The use of visual aids increases the attention and activity of the employee, reduces the abstractness of the presentation, helps to better link the arguments and thus ensure a better understanding on his part. In addition, the clarity of the arguments makes the argument more persuasive and documentary.

There are two main reasoning structures:

• evidence-based argumentation, when it is necessary to prove or substantiate something;
• counterargumentation, with the help of which it is necessary to refute the theses and statements of the performer.

For both designs, the same basic techniques apply.

Argumentation techniques

In relation to any persuasive impact or speech, there are 10 parameters, the observance of which makes this impact the most optimal.

1. Professional Competence. High objectivity, reliability and depth of presentation.
2. Clarity. Linking facts and details, avoiding ambiguity, confusion, understatement.
3. visibility. The maximum use of visibility, well-known associations, a minimum of abstractness in the presentation of thoughts.
4. Constant direction. During a conversation or discussion, it is necessary to adhere to a certain course, goal or task, and to some extent familiarize the interlocutors with them.
5. Rhythm. It is necessary to increase the intensity of a business conversation as it approaches its end, while paying special attention to key issues.
6. Repetition. The emphasis on the main provisions and thoughts is of great importance for the interlocutor to perceive the information.
7. The element of surprise. It is a thoughtful, but unexpected and unusual for the interlocutor, linking details and facts.
8. "Saturation" of reasoning. It is necessary that during communication emotional accents are made that require maximum concentration of attention from the interlocutor, and there are also phases of lowering emotionality, which are necessary for a respite and fixing thoughts and associations with the interlocutor.
9. The boundaries of the issue under discussion. Voltaire once said: "The secret to being boring is to tell everything."
10. A certain dose of irony and humor. It is useful to apply this rule of business conversation when you need to express thoughts that are not very pleasant for the performer or to parry his attacks.

Argumentation Tactics

Let us dwell on the tactics of argumentation. The question may arise: how does it differ from the technique of argumentation, which covers methodological aspects, how to build an argument, while tactics develops the art of applying specific techniques? In accordance with this, technique is the ability to give logical arguments, and tactics are the ability to choose psychologically effective ones from them.

Consider the main provisions of argumentation tactics.

1. Applying Arguments. The argumentation phase should begin confidently, without much hesitation. State the main arguments at any opportunity, but, if possible, each time in a new light.

2. Choice of technique. Depending on the psychological characteristics interlocutors choose different methods of argumentation.

3. Avoiding confrontation. Avoiding aggravation or confrontation is very important for the normal course of the argument, since the opposing points of view and the tense atmosphere that have arisen during the presentation of one of the points of the argument can easily spread to other areas. There are some subtleties here:

• it is recommended that critical questions be considered either at the beginning or at the end of the argumentation phase;
• it is useful to have a private discussion with the executor on particularly sensitive issues before the start of the discussion, since “face to face” you can achieve greater results than at a meeting;
• in exceptionally difficult situations, it is useful to take a break to "cool heads" and then return to the same question again.

4. "Appetite Stimulation". This technique is based on the following position of social psychology: it is most convenient to offer the performer options and information to preliminary awaken his interest in it. This means that you first need to describe the current state of affairs with an emphasis on possible Negative consequences and then (on the basis of "provoked appetite") indicate the direction of possible solutions with a detailed rationale for all the benefits.

5. Bilateral Argumentation. It will have a greater impact on an employee whose opinion does not coincide with yours. In this case, you point out both the benefits and the weak sides proposed solution. The effectiveness of this technique depends on the intellectual abilities of the performer. In any case, as far as possible, any shortcomings that he could learn about from other sources of information should be pointed out. One-sided reasoning can be used in cases where the employee has his own opinion or he openly expresses a positive attitude towards your point of view.

6. Order of advantages and disadvantages. In accordance with the conclusions of social psychology, such information has a decisive influence on the formation of the interlocutor's position, when the advantages are listed first, and then the disadvantages.

7. Personification of argumentation. Based on the fact that the persuasiveness of evidence primarily depends on the perception of subordinates (and they are not critical of themselves), you come to the idea that you need to first try to identify their position, and then include it in your construction of argumentation, or, at least at least not to allow it to contradict your premises. The easiest way to do this is to contact the employee directly:

• "What do you think of this offer?"
• “How do you think this problem can be solved?”
• "You're right"

Having recognized his correctness, having shown attention, we thereby encourage a person who will now accept our argument with less resistance.

8. Drawing up conclusions. It is possible to argue with brilliance, but still not achieve the desired goal if we fail to generalize the facts and information offered. Therefore, in order to achieve as much persuasiveness as possible, you must definitely draw conclusions yourself and offer them to employees, because facts do not always speak for themselves.

9. Techniques of counterargument. When someone tries to confuse you with an impeccable, at least at first glance, argumentation, you should remain cool and think:

• Are the stated statements true? Is it possible to refute their foundations, or at least separate parts where the facts are not linked to each other?
• Can any inconsistencies be identified?
• Are the conclusions erroneous or at least partially inaccurate?

Arguments that convince

Perhaps the most important element in influencing public opinion is persuasion. Persuasion is the task of the vast majority of PR programs. Persuasion theory has a myriad of explanations and interpretations. In principle, persuasion means that a person will do something through advice, reasoning, or simple arm-twisting. Many books have been written about the immense power of advertising and PR as tools of persuasion.

How can you convince people? Saul Alinsky, the legendary radical organizer, developed a very simple theory of persuasion: “People understand things in terms of their own experience... If you try to communicate your ideas to others without paying attention to what they want to tell you, then you can forget about your idea. In other words, if you want to convince people, you need to provide evidence that matches their own beliefs, emotions, and expectations.

What arguments convince people?

1. Facts. The facts are indisputable. While it is true that, as they say, “statistics sometimes lie,” empirical evidence is a compelling tool for building a “home” for a point of view. That is why a good PR program always starts with research - finding facts.

2. Emotions. Maslow was right. People really respond to appeals to emotions - love, peace, family, patriotism. Ronald Reagan was known as a "great communicator" largely because he appealed to emotions. Even as the entire nation was outraged after 200 American soldiers died in a terrorist attack in Lebanon in 1983, President Reagan was able to overcome its skepticism by talking to a wounded US Marine in a Lebanese hospital.

3. Personalization. People react to personal experience.

• When poet Maya Angelou speaks of poverty, people listen and respect the woman who came from the dirty and poor fringes of the segregation-era Deep South.
• When Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy advocates for gun control, people realize her husband was killed and her son badly wounded by an armed lunatic on the Long Island Railroad.

4. Appeal to "you". There is one word that people do not get tired of listening to - it is "you". "And what will it give me?" is a question that everyone asks. Thus, one of the secrets of persuasion is to constantly put yourself in the place of the audience and constantly refer to "You."

Even though these four commandments are so simple, they are hard to understand - especially for business leaders who don't approve of emotions, or personalization, or even reaching out to an audience. Some consider it "below their dignity" to flaunt human emotions. Of course, this is a mistake. The power of persuasion - influence on public opinion - is a criterion not only for a charismatic, but also for an effective leader.

Impact on public opinion

Public opinion is much easier to evaluate than to influence it. However, a well-thought-out PR program can crystallize attitudes, reinforce beliefs, and sometimes change public opinion. First of all, you need to highlight and understand the opinion that you want to change or modify. The second is to clearly define the target group. Thirdly, a PR specialist should have a clear idea of ​​what “laws” public opinion is guided by, no matter how amorphous they may be.

In this context, 15 laws of public opinion developed many years ago by social psychologist Hadley Cantril can be applied.

15 laws of public opinion

1. Opinion is hypersensitive to important events.

2. Events of an unusual scale can cause public opinion to move from one extreme to another for a while. Opinion does not stabilize until the prospects for the consequences of events are assessed.

3. Opinion as a whole is determined by events, not words, except in cases where the words themselves can be interpreted as an event.

4. Oral statements and programs of action are of great importance in situations where opinion is unstructured, and people are open to suggestions and waiting for explanations from reliable sources.

5. By and large, public opinion does not foresee critical situations but only responds to them.

6. Opinion as a whole is determined by personal interest. Events, words, and any other stimuli affect opinion only to the extent that they are related to self-interest.

7. Opinion does not exist without change for a long period of time, except when people feel a high degree personal interest and when the opinion that arose from words is supported by events.

8. If there is a personal interest, then the opinion is not so easy to change.

9. If self-interest is present, then public opinion in a democratic society is likely to dominate official policy.

10. If the opinion belongs to a small majority, or if it is not well structured, then a fait accompli tends to shift the opinion in the direction of accepting the fact.

11. In times of crisis, people become more sensitive to the adequacy of their leaders. If people are confident in them, then they tend to place more responsibility on them; if they are less confident in their leaders, they become less tolerant than usual.

12. People are less reluctant to trust their leaders to make important decisions if they feel they have some part to play.

13. People most often have an opinion, and it is easier for them to form an opinion about the objectives than about the methods of achieving these objectives.

14. Public opinion, like individual opinion, is colored by desire. And when an opinion is mainly based on desire, and not on information, then it can fluctuate under the influence of ongoing events.

15. In general, if in a democratic society people are given opportunities for education and easy access to information, then public opinion reflects common sense. The more people are aware of the consequences of events and proposals for self-interest, the more likely they are to agree with the more objective opinions of realistic experts.

We deliberately repeated the basic truths several times, we hope our material will help you convincingly convince your interlocutor to make the right decision.