Mountain of evidence

Sometimes the speaker might let the evidence do most of the talking.

That could mean one strong piece of evidence or a whole pile of evidence.

For example, we saw an ad from Citibank that was a claim plus reason.

But here's a different Citi ad that is mostly evidence:

Citibank assets ad

How does this ad persuade the audience through argument?

Claim: (You are rich in assets that are not money.)

Reason: (This is a factual claim, so the evidence is the reason.)

Evidence: A long list of assets that many people have and take for granted, so long it runs off the page.

Also, while we're here:

Character: The Citi brand.

Emotion: Emotive list of assets; list so long it runs off the page.

We've said before that evidence doesn't actually have to be real to be effective.

The list that Citibank provides is not "real"—you may or may not have pets, freedom, love, etc. But it's plausible enough that we accept the point.

However, evidence is usually more persuasive when it's real and vivid.

How does this Sharpie ad let evidence do the persuading?

Sharpie Twin Tip ad lge

How does this ad persuade the audience through argument?

Claim: Sharpie Twin Tip lets you write and draw in two styles.

Reason: (This is a factual claim, so the evidence is the reason.)

Evidence: Two comic strips with strikingly different levels of detail.

Plus:

Character: Sharpie brand.

Emotion: Dramatic story in the images (rockets, space) evokes same sense of adventure for buying a new pen and trying it out.

The Sharpie ad is a nice use of evidence, but still, at the end of the day, it's just a pen with two nibs.

Evidence is powerful not just when it's real, but also when it's striking.

For example, how does this Volvo truck ad use evidence?

How does this ad persuade the audience through argument?

Claim: Volvo trucks are unbelievably stable and precise.

Reason: They can be used to pull off an impossible stunt.

Evidence: 80s/90s martial arts action movie star Jean-Claude Van Damme doing the splits across two trucks driving backwards. Unbelievable demonstration of evidence.

Also, while we're here:

Character: The Volvo brand, plus virtue (honesty, authenticity) from the demonstration, plus Jean-Claude Van Damme's reputation and history.

Emotion: Awe from music, sunlight, golden colour of the trucks, motion of the camera, JCVD's poetic backstory about setbacks and perfection.

Speaking of the automotive industry, here's a snippet from an address in which a lawyer for General Motors tries to persuade the U.S. Congress to save the company from bankruptcy.

How does the speaker use evidence to persuasive effect?

Over the past century, General Motors grew into a worldwide leader in products and services related to the development, manufacture, and marketing of cars and trucks under various brands, including: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Daewoo, Holden, HUMMER, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Vauxhall, and Wuling. The Company has produced nearly 450,000,000 vehicles globally and operates in virtually every country in the world.

The recent severe economic downturn has had an unprecedented impact on the global automotive industry. Nevertheless, particularly in the United States, the automotive industry remains a driving force of the economy. It employs one in ten American workers and is one of the largest purchasers of U.S.-manufactured steel, aluminum, iron, copper, plastics, rubber, and electronic and computer chips.

Almost 4% of the United States gross domestic product, and nearly 10% of U.S. industrial production by value, are related to the automotive industry.

How does this speech persuade the audience through argument?

Claim: GM is a pillar of the U.S. economy.

Reason: Scale of manufacture, employment, and value.

Evidence: A giant list of car and truck brands, materials used in production, employment and economic output figures.

Also:

Character: This is developing an expertise and authority character (based on age, size, experience) for the audience.

Emotion: None. This is just a list of facts, although the scale of the facts is kind of awe-inspiring.

We see this kind of mountain of evidence approach often in books, essays, reports and other formats where a speaker can take their time to build an argument.

For example, this is a snippet from a book in which an archaeologist and an anthropologist challenge commonly-held assumptions about ancient (neolithic) societies:

If you put enough people in one place, *the evidence seemed to show*, they would almost inevitably develop writing or something like it, together with administrators, storage and redistribution facilities, workshops and overseers. Before long, they would also start dividing themselves into social classes. ‘Civilization’ came as a package. It meant misery and suffering for some (since some would inevitably be reduced to serfs, slaves or debt peons), but also allowed for the possibility of philosophy, art and the accumulation of scientific knowledge.

*The evidence no longer suggests anything of the sort*. In fact, much of what we have come to learn in the last forty or fifty years has thrown conventional wisdom into disarray.

In some regions, we now know, cities governed themselves for centuries without any sign of the temples and palaces that would only emerge later; in others, temples and palaces never emerged at all. In many early cities, there is simply no evidence of either a class of administrators or any other sort of ruling stratum. In others, centralized power seems to appear and then disappear. It would seem that the mere fact of urban life does not, necessarily, imply any particular form of political organization, and never did.

This has all sorts of important implications: for one thing, it suggests a much less pessimistic assessment of human possibilities, since the mere fact that much of the world’s population now live in cities may not determine how we live, to anything like the extent you might assume – but before even starting to think about that, we need to ask how we got things so extraordinarily wrong to begin with.

How does this snippet persuade the audience through argument?

Claim: Cities don't inevitably create the social structures that many people believe they do.

Reason: Archaeological evidence shows a wide variety of social structures in ancient cities.

Evidence: Examples of features that have appeared or not appeared in ancient cities.

Also:

Character: This snippet relies on the academic reputation of the authors, plus it tries to demonstrate virtue by acknowledging other points of view.

Emotion: It's subtle, but there are definite emotional cues in the word choices such as "misery and suffering" and "less pessimistic assessment of human possibilities".

Try making a mountain of evidence to persuade an audience to believe a claim.

Use the image for inspiration and provide 3-5 pieces of evidence to support it. (Make up whatever you think will be compelling!)

This is the world's most delicious apple

  • Stories of experience
  • Observation
  • Numbers & statistics
  • Studies have shown
  • Experts say
  • We asked people
  • Imagine if
  • Accepted facts
Write 3-5 pieces of evidence to support the claim in this image.