Comm Test 3

Front 1

Persuasion

Back 1

The process by which a speaker influences what audience members think or do. (346)

Front 2

Logos

Back 2

The proof the speaker offers to an audience through the words of his or her message. (346)

Front 3

Elaboration likelihood model

Back 3

A model of persuasion designed to explain why audience members will use an elaborated thinking process in some situations and not in others. (347)

Front 4

Transportation theory

Back 4

the theory that the experience of becoming immersed in a story can transport audience members into a narrative world, which can lead to real-world belief ( and behavior) change. (351)

Front 5

Branding

Back 5

The process of creating a lasting impression about a name, company, or product. (353)

Front 6

Adoption

Back 6

Consumers’ decision to commit to a product, practice, or idea. (353)

Front 7

Reinforcement

Back 7

Rewards given to strengthening attitudes, beliefs, values, and behavior. (353)

Front 8

inoculation

Back 8

Techniques used to make peoples beliefs systems resistant to counter persuasion. (353)

Front 9

Change

Back 9

Substitute or modify attitudes, beliefs, and

behaviors. (354)

Front 10

Ethos

Back 10

the degree to which an audience perceives a speaker a credible. (355)

Front 11

Source of credibility

Back 11

The audience perception that of the believability of the speaker. (355)

Front 12

Competence

Back 12

The audience perception that the speaker is knowledgeable about the topic. (355)

Front 13

Character

Back 13

The audience perception that a speakers

trustworthiness transfer to the claims the speaker makes. (355)

Front 14

First-order data

Back 14

Evidence based on personal experience. (362)

Front 15

Second-order data

Back 15

Evidence based on expert testimony. (362)

Front 16

Third-order data

Back 16

Evidence based on facts and statistics. (362)

Front 17

Pathos

Back 17

The emotional state in an audience that a speaker can arouse and use to achieve persuasive goals. (363)

Front 18

Critical thinking

Back 18

The process of making sound inferences based on accurate evidence and valid reasoning. (376)

Front 19

Verbal aggressiveness

Back 19

The trait of attacking the self-concept of those with whom one disagrees about controversial claims. (377)

Front 20

Grounds

Back 20

the evidence the speaker offers in support of a claim. (380)

Front 21

Warrant

Back 21

the connection between evidence (grounds) and claim. (380)

Front 22

Backing

Back 22

Evidence that directly supports a warrant. (381)

Front 23

Qualifiers

Back 23

An indication of the level of probability of a claim. (381)

Front 24

Rebuttal

Back 24

An exception to or a refutation of an argument. (381)

Front 25

Pseudoreasoning

Back 25

An argument that papers sound at first glance but contains a fallacy of reasoning that renders it unsound. (381)

Front 26

Fallacy

Back 26

An argument in which the reasonings advanced for a claim fail to warrant acceptance of the claim. (381)

Front 27

Unsupported assertions

Back 27

A claim without any evidence to support it. (382)

Front 28

Distorted evidence:

Back 28

Significant omissions or changes in evidence that alter its original intent. (383)

Front 29

Misleading statistics

Back 29

Statistics that are incomplete or based on faulty data. (384)

Front 30

Red Herring (Smoke screen)

Back 30

An irrelevant issue introduced into a controversy to divert attention from the real issue. (384)

Front 31

Arguing in a circle (begging the question)

Back 31

An argument that proves nothing because the claims to be proved is used to prove itself. (385)

Front 32

Halo effect

Back 32

the assumption just because you like or respect the person, whatever he or she says must be true. (386)

Front 33

Ad hominem

Back 33

attacking the person rather than the soundness of his or her argument. (387)

Front 34

Hasty generalization

Back 34

a Fallacy that occurs when there are too few instances to support a generalization of the

instances are unrepresentative of the

generalization. (388)

Front 35

Stereotyping

Back 35

The assumption that what is considered to be true of a larger class is necessarily true of the particular members of the class. (389)

Front 36

False dilemma

Back 36

a generalization that implies there are only two choices when there are more than two. (389)

Front 37

False analogy

Back 37

The comparison of two different things that are not really comparable. (391)

Front 38

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Back 38

” After the fact, therefor the fact” The assumption that because one event preceded another, the first event must be the cause of the second event. (392)

Front 39

Slippery slope

Back 39

the assumption that just because one event

occurs, it will automatically lead to a series of

undesirable events even though there is no

relationship between the action and the

projected events. (392)

Front 40

Making correlation for cause

Back 40

the assumption that because one thing is a sign of another they are causally related. (393)

Front 41

Loaded language

Back 41

language that triggers strong emotional and

negative responses. (394)

Front 42

Hyperbole

Back 42

An exaggeration of a claim. (394)

Front 43

Straw person

Back 43

An argument made in refutation that misstates the argument being refuted. rather that refuting the real argument, the other side constructs a person of straw, which is easy to knock down. (395)

Front 44

Non sequitur

Back 44

An argument that does not logically follow from its premises. (395)