Test what is argumentation. Logics. theory and practice of argumentation. What is a thesis

Fundamentals of the theory of argumentation

1. What evidence is called circumstantial?

A) This is a true judgment, with the help of which the thesis is substantiated.

B) This is evidence in which the truth of the thesis put forward is directly justified by arguments.

C) This is a logical technique by which the falsity or lack of evidence of the advanced position is established.

D) This is a proof in which the truth of the thesis put forward is substantiated by proving the falsity of the antithesis.

2. What are the thesis and arguments in the argument:“Every lawyer should know the logic (a). Cadet Sidorov receives a logical education (c), since he studies at the Faculty of Law (c)"?

A) a - thesis, c and c - arguments. B) c - thesis, a and c - arguments.

C) c - thesis, and and c - arguments. D) There is no argument here.

3. What is the type of argumentation:“You say that this man is guilty. This person is not guilty, since the one who committed the offense should have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and he was in another city”?

A) direct evidence. B) Indirect evidence.

B) Direct rebuttal. D) Indirect refutation.

4. How to avoid the “circle in proof” error?

A) Put forward the simplest thesis that is easily proven.

B) Do not substantiate the thesis with the argument for the justification of which the statement, which is the thesis, will act as an argument.

C) Demonstrate the least number of arguments.

D) Do not repeat the same arguments in the proof.

5. Which of the following statements is the thesis rule?

A) The thesis must be formulated in the language of logic.

B) The thesis must be a substantiated statement.

C) The thesis should be a clear statement.

D) The thesis must be a provable statement.

6. What is a ploy in argumentation called "excessive requirement for specification of the thesis"?

A) It is a requirement to clarify each argument.

B) This requirement is to explain the reasons for the thesis.

C) This requirement is to clarify the origin of the thesis.

D) This requirement is to clarify even clear expressions.

7. Who is most often the argumentator at the court session?

a) Witnesses and the accused. b) Relatives of the accused.

C) Prosecutor and lawyer. D) Prosecutor and Judge.

8. What is a demo?

A) A system of inference, showing the logical consequence of the thesis from the arguments.

B) System of arguments.

C) Rhetorical persuasiveness of the argumentators.

D) Recognition by the recipient of the truth of the thesis.

9. What is the name of the logical action to destroy the evidence?

A) Criticism of the thesis. B) Criticism of arguments.

C) Criticism of the demonstration. D) denial.

10. What is a thesis?

A) This is a proposition, the truth of which is proved.

B) This is a proposition, the truth of which must be proven, since it is useful to society.

C) This is a judgment, the truth of which is accepted in the argument.

D) This is a proposition, the truth of which has been proven earlier.

ARGUMENTATION

Argument is the norm.

If there are no disputes in your life,

check if you have a pulse.

C. Dixon.

They say that truth is born in a dispute. Is it so? Or is it just nice words?

Most often, during a dispute, the interlocutors gradually turn into a state of aggression and achieve nothing but antipathy towards each other. It is very easy to verify this by simply watching any talk show on television. What is the reason for the failures?

In this article, you will get acquainted with the types of argumentation that will help you defend your point of view in any dispute.

WHAT IS ARGUMENTATION

Argumentation is the process of conveying a certain thought to an audience or interlocutor, in which various evidence, facts are given, by explaining and giving various examples.

Most often, argumentation is referred to as rational methods, since in the process an analysis of the situation takes place, the maturity of thinking and the logical order of things are demonstrated, and also, importantly, oratory.

On the other hand, argumentation is also characterized by hidden forms of expression of irrational and emotional influence, which manifest themselves in relation to others.

It can be very unpleasant and insulting when, during important negotiations, you have nothing to say to your opponent or when a valuable thought comes after a conversation.

I would like to note that the argumentation in sales is very similar to the game, but as in any game, for a successful ending, you need to know the rules! There are not many of them in sales, but they are talked about a lot, because they are most effective if used correctly.

STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTATION

The thesis is the formulation of your proposal for the other side, your opinion and position.

Arguments - this is a list of evidence, provisions, arguments that you bring to your interlocutor or audience in order to substantiate your point of view.

Demonstration is the relationship of thesis and argument i.e. the process of persuasion, proving your point of view.

Thus, with the help of various arguments, you can partially or completely change the opinion or position of your interlocutor.

Operate with clear, simple, and most importantly accurate and convincing terms;

Always speak the truth. If you are not completely sure of your knowledge or information, then first clarify or double-check it before you say it.

Choose the pace of speech and methods of argumentation taking into account the characteristics of the character and habits of your interlocutor. An individual approach is important.

All your argumentation must be correct in relation to the interlocutor or audience.

Incorrect expressions and too long formulations that make it difficult to understand what you said should be avoided, but on the other hand, speech should not be “poor”.

Arguments are evaluated as follows:

1.Competent arguments are always based on concrete facts.

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

3. Arguments must be relevant to your interlocutor or audience, otherwise it makes no sense to give them.

TYPES OF ARGUMENTATION

In this case, it is assumed that you are reasoning from evidence to a thesis.

For example: “The drug is number 1 among the drugs in its category. Patients and doctors choose it because it quickly eliminates the problem that has arisen, while exerting its effect locally, without causing a systemic effect.

2. Indirect or argumentation "from the contrary"

In this case, it is necessary to create an antithesis. In the process of your argument, you prove its falsity, and thus confirm the need to accept the true thesis as true.

3. Rational

This type of reasoning is controlled by consciousness and most often prevails in men. In this type of argumentation, graphs, figures, facts predominate.

4. Emotional

Most often it predominates in women. In such an argument, preference is given to gestures, facial expressions, and the timbre of the voice.

5. Universal

That is suitable for any audience

6. Contextual

Suitable only for a certain type of audience

The third lesson of the course is devoted to argumentation and its practical features. But before we move on to the main material, let's talk a little about why in general, from the position of critical thinking, it is necessary to be able to argue one's opinion, and also to trust only reasoned opinions.

What is argumentation and why is it important

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

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

The ultimate goal of argumentation consists in persuading the audience of the truth of any situation, inclining people to accept the author's point of view, prompting reflection or action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basic argumentation methods

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

fundamental method

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

Of greatest importance here is numerical and statistical information, which serves as an ideal background for supporting arguments. Unlike verbal (and often controversial) data, numbers and statistics are much more convincing and objective.

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

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

Ignore method

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

contradiction method

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

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

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

- No, it doesn't exist.

- Is that your belief?

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

"Yes, but" method

The presented method gives the best results when the opponent is biased towards the topic of the conversation. Given that objects, phenomena and processes have both positive and negative sides, this method makes it possible to see and discuss alternative ways to solve the problem.

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

Comparison method

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

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

Boomerang Method

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

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

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

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

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

Partial argumentation method

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

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

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

Visible Support Method

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

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

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

Argumentation rules

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

Rule One

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

Rule Two

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

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

Rule Three

The argument must always look correct. This means:

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

Rule Four

Adapt the arguments to the personality of the interlocutor:

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

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

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

Argumentation constructions and argumentation techniques

In total, there are two main constructions of argumentation:

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

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

Argumentation techniques

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

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

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

Argumentation Tactics

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

Using Arguments

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

Choice of technique

Technique (methods) should be chosen taking into account the psychological characteristics of the opponent and your own.

avoidance of confrontation

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

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

Maintain interest

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

Bilateral Argumentation

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

Sequence of pros and cons

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

Personified Argumentation

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

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

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

Drawing conclusions

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

Counterargument

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

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

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

We want to conclude the third lesson of our course with a small talk about persuasive arguments - another important element of influencing the opinion of a person and a group of people.

A few persuasive arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you want to test your knowledge?

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

bringing arguments, factors, evidence in order to persuade a certain person or group of people to accept the proposal being made. Argumentation is one of the types of influence, changing one person under the influence of another, the ability to achieve what is necessary without the use of power and manipulation.

Arguments are statements that we use to confirm the information we need, the conclusion. They are logical and psychological.

Boolean Arguments addressed to the human mind. These include previously proven laws of science, axioms, factual material, which presents accurate data (statistics). Logical arguments are more effective for persuasion, but arguments from both groups are worth using for effective influence.

Psychological arguments- addressed to the feelings and emotions of a person. They are aimed at traditions, intuition, beliefs, fears, experiences.

At first glance, influencing through arguments seems easy enough, but in practice, making the right arguments is not so easy.

Let's take an example: you buy a winter jacket in a store. Arguments such as warmth, waterproofness, insulated lining, length of the jacket, material from which it is made are logical arguments. You can touch them, check them out. And such arguments as “I like her”, “My wife / husband will like her”, “Angelina Jolie wears exactly the same” are situational, psychological arguments.

For your influence to be effective, try using the following "argumentative influence" scheme. Technique of influence "Argumentation 3+".

1. Thesis. That is, what exactly you want to inspire, sell or prove.

2. Arguments. At least three arguments, it is better to use logical proven arguments. It's harder to argue against them.

3. Thesis and conclusion. And at the end, you repeat the thesis and the main conclusion again. The scheme can be cyclic. If you see that your arguments have not had the desired effect, then you can return to the argumentation point again and specify several new arguments. It should be noted that the arguments may vary depending on the client being influenced. When selling a jacket to a bearded uncle in his fifties, the argument that this jacket is worn by Brad Pitt will be of little effect, but the presence of an internal pocket for documents or an insulated lining for ice fishing can convince him to buy this product.

Another technique for influencing with arguments is "complex argument". The features of a complex argument are that it must be truthful, logical, interesting, and important to the person being influenced. For example, such situation. My husband is going away for the weekend. The wife is against the trip. His complex argument:“I worked with irregular hours all week and, being at home, helped you with the child and with household chores. While I'm gone, you can invite your girlfriends or your mother to visit. Moreover, while we will be apart for two days, we will be able to call up and exchange text messages, because you miss this so much!

An important point in influencing with the help of argumentation is the correct arrangement of theses. The most effective system is one in which strong arguments are placed at the beginning and at the end of the statement, and weaker theses can be inserted in the middle. If you see that your interlocutor is in a positive mood, you can start with weak arguments, gradually increasing their strength, and conclude with the most effective ones. Conversely, if the interlocutor is skeptical, it is better to immediately start with the strongest and most convincing arguments. The complex argument must:

Influence by persuasion when using arguments can be very effective if you can use argumentation techniques correctly and arrange arguments in the text in the right way.

Elena Lyubovinkina - consultant, psychologist.

Do you want to be confident and impressive, learn how to convince, use weighty arguments, ask the right questions? But not sure where to get the time to acquire the right influence skills? Then our online training “Psychology of Influence. How to influence people” - this is what will help you with this! You can take it at any convenient time. .

Argumentation is a full or partial substantiation of a statement using other statements.

It is assumed that in good (correct) arguments, other statements are fully or at least partially substantiated, and the justified position follows logically from them, or at least they confirm it.

In a more complete sense, the argument is:

• A proposition (or set of propositions) made in support of the truth of some other proposition.
• Submission of evidence (ground, argument).
• The whole proof.

Arguments can be evidence or non-evidence.

• Evidential argumentation is the establishment of the truth of the thesis using logical formulas with the help of arguments, the truth of which is established in advance. The form of such an argument is deduction. Thesis - a reliable judgment
• There are three types of unproven argumentation, the theses of this type of argumentation are plausible judgments; So:

1. The truth of the arguments (all or some) is not proven; the form of argumentation is deduction or complete (scientific) induction.

2. The truth of the arguments is established in advance; the form of argumentation is induction, analogy.

3. Arguments are plausible; the form of arguments is induction, analogy.