【正文】 Persuading through appeals to basic social, biological, and psychological needs, wants, and desires.3. 3. Persuading through adapting to different audiences In most cases of successful persuasion, all three methods are mixed in varying degrees, depending on the speaker’s character and style. Persuading Through Evidence and ReasoningLet us consider these methods, starting with argument and its ponents, evidence and reasoning. Evidence, as you know, consists of facts and expert opinions.A fact is information that is proved, is documented, and can be verified. Here are some examples.Fact: Some of the highest paid people in the country are professional athletes.Opinion: Professional athletes are overpaid.Fact: There is no human life on the moon.Opinion: There is no human life in outer space.Fact: Princess Diana was killed in an automobile crash.Opinion: Princess Diana’s death was the result of a foreign conspiracy. Using Opinions Wisely Opinions may be either your own or those of other people. As with facts, some opinions are convincing and others are not, depending on their sources. If you are using opinions in your speech to persuade, identify the sources and their qualifications. The most valid type of opinion is the “expert opinion”. But on the other hand, using “nonexpert” opinions can jeopardize your talk. Inferences mean drawing a conclusion or generalization based on observation, experience, and/or logic. In other words, when you infer something, you e to a conclusion or generalization based on what you see, hear, or read, but it may not be specifically evident or stated. For example, let us say you are driving home late one night after studying in the library. As you approach your house, you observe a police car in your driveway. Whoa! As a result you may conclude one or several inferences. A member of your family is ill and your family are waiting for the ambulance。 Perhaps there is a burglary。 Maybe your kid sister gets into a little trouble and the police takes her home. It is until you enter the house that you learn (with great relief) that the police officer is a friend of your dad’s and he stops in to say hello.As you can see, when you make an inference it is not necessarily a valid one. Inferences may prove to be correct, false, or elsewhere in between.To sum up, facts are statements that are documented and can be verified. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion but the only authoritative ones are offered by experts or generalizations based on your experience, observation, and/or logic which may be true or, an educated guess. Types of Reasoning If you have facts and authoritative opinions, you are in a position to carry out some reasoning. So now let us discuss some mon types of reasoning: deductive, inductive, casual, and analogic.(a) Deductive reasoning is the type of reasoning that moves from a general premise, or principle to a specific conclusion. If the premise is true, then the conclusion is most likely true. As we mature over the years, we learn lessons of life from which we make deductions. For example, we may deduce, from experience, that people who smoke in elevators and other closedin places are more concerned with their own immediate satisfaction than with the fort of others.In formal terms, deductive reasoning is structured as a syllogism that consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The classical syllogism is this:Major premise: All men are mortal.Minor premise: Socrates is a man.Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.Beware of one potential pitfall in using deductive reasoning: You must be certain that both premises are true. If they are not, the conclusion will be unreliable, as in this syllogism:Having a college degree is the surest way to get a wellpaying job.Charles Ross will soon have a college degree.Charles Ross will get a wellpaying job. As we all know, having a college degree is only one factor in achieving a wellpaying job and, therefore, the conclusion is invalid.(b) Inductive reasoning, the reverse of deductive reasoning, starts with specific examples or cases and ends with a general conclusion based on the examples or cases. For instance:Some laws and regulations of our country promote clean air and water. (specific example)Clean air and water are essential to good health.Therefore, we should support these laws and regulations. (general conclusion)A mon weakness in inductive reasoning is illustrated in the following generalization.The Professional Air Traffic Controller Organization and another union went on strike in violation of their contracts.Therefore all unions are bad and should be outlawed.That generalization is weak and invalid because it is based on a very limited number of examples. There is no rule about how many examples you need, but the more you can cite, the stronger your case will be.(c) Causal reasoning moves from cause to effect (result). For instance, doctors and scientists have proved, through thousands of experiments, that smoking heavily (cause) shortens your life by a certain numbers of years (effect).Here is another monsense example of causal reasoning:When mortgage rates decline, people are more willing to buy homes. (cause)Mortgage rates are now declining.Sales of homes will soon increase. (effect)The danger in causal reasoning is to oversimplify, to rely too heavily on one cause。 in the real world, most effects are brought about by several causes. In the smoking example, it is important to consider that other factors—heredity, environment, and lifestyle—influence longevity.To avoid oversimplification in causal reasoning, keep the following two questions in mind:1. 1. Did the alleged cause, in fact, result in or contribute to the effect?2. 2. Is the alleged cause the only cause of the effect?(d) In analogic reasoning (reasoning b