Audiences find a speaker more convincing

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct61% picked this

   Political candidates typically have no control over which excerpts from their speeches will be reported

   Why this is right

   "Candidates hoping to win national elections should not open up their speeches by presenting counterarguments against their proposals, because ..... the news media might excerpt the part of their speech that contains the counterpoints, thereby giving voters the wrong impression of a candidate's stance on the issue. If Shelly is running as a pro-immigration candidate, and she starts a pro-immigration speech by saying, "I know a lot of people are worried about unlawful immigrants taking jobs and committing crimes, and I know that state budgets are already strained so spending money on unlawful immigrants is a dubious use of money, but ... [pro-immigration speech]" the news media might just run excerpts from the preamble, saying "Here's what candidate Shelly had to say tonight about immigration: "people are worried about unlawful immigrants taking jobs ... spending state money on unlawful immigrants is a dubious use of money" This answer is giving us the "backfire" objection. You shouldn't follow this recommendation because it could have an unanticipated negative consequence: you get meme'd saying stuff that was just a disclaimer, not your core beliefs.

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   61%
2. B

   Strengthens Recommendation9% picked this

   Many people do not find arguments made by politicians convincing, since the arguments are often one-sided

   This says people don't like one-sided, oversimplified. The recommendation is for multi-side, embrace the complexity. So this answer makes it seem like people would appreciate those who follow this recommendation.

   9%
3. C

   Strengthens27% picked this

   People decide which political candidate to vote for more on the basis of their opinions of the candidate’s character than on the

   Although this technique does involve clarifying arguments for and against a candidate's exact positions, the effect of this technique is that it makes the candidate appear "fair-minded and trustworthy" (which are traits of the candidate's character). So even though voters wouldn't be as interested in the specific policy position part of this recommendation, they would still presumably be affected positively by this argumentative technique, since it reflects positively on the user's character.

   27%
4. D

   Strengthens Recommendation2% picked this

   People regard a political candidate more favorably if they think that the candidate respects an opponent’s position even

   This sounds like it confirms the whole rationale for this recommendation. By showing you recognize counterarguments, you're showing that you respect an opponent's position even though you will go on to disagree with it. And voters view this favorably.

   2%
5. E

   No Impact1% picked this

   Political candidates have to address audiences of many different sizes and at many different locations in the course

   This is the classic "wishy-washy" no impact answer of - things fluctuate - there's lots of variety - many different types and sizes There's nothing specific to use from these answers usually. We could certainly limit the effectiveness of the recommendation if we could say, "Hey, this only works well for Settings like X or Y, but it doesn't work well for Settings A, B, or C." But we don't have any common sense way to think that this technique would work in the South, addressing the factory floor of a manufacturer, but wouldn't work in the Northeast, addressing the employees of a seafood restaurant.

   1%