INTRODUCTION

Human relations involve a variety of social functions. This is the reason

why there are different types of speech-making styles that caters for the
different occasions. These different styles of speeches differ from their degree of
intimacy and formality in consideration of the members of the gathering
groups.
BASIC TYPES OF SPEECHES
The knowledge of the basic type of speeches will make it easy for the
speaker to adapt in approaching his subject as will as to his or her audience.
The basic types of speeches are the Informative Speech, the Evocative Speech,
the Entertainment Speech, the Argumentative Speech and the Persuasive
Speech.
The Informative Speech usually begins with a favorable attention in
order to catch the interest of the listeners. It will be then followed by the
classification step which will inform or clarify the listeners regarding the
subject matter. The purpose of the informative speech is to impart
knowledge, clarify information as well as to secure understanding.
To be able to sustain the interest, it is recommended that the informative
speech should not be more than five heading on its development. It is also
important to provide the summary of your points in speech before presenting
the conclusion. With this, the audience may impress with what the speaker
wanted to emphasize in his or her message.
The good evocative speech has certain characteristics namely; geniality,
enthusiasm, modesty and tolerance. In speech, the speaker should have
geniality, that is, he or she must have a friendly and easy going approach. The
speaker should have an enthusiasm; he or she must convince the audience or
the listeners about the importance, the value or the soundness of a particular
subject. In doing this, his or her listeners might be influenced with his or her
enthusiasm or spirit. The speaker should also have modesty; he or she must be
fair, polite as well as courteous with regards to any opposing ideas.
The entertainment speech has the nature to transmit a feeling of pleasure as
well as goodwill to the audience of listeners. The speaker should be gracious,
genial, good natured as well as relaxed to his or her audience. By doing this, he

will be able to show the audience that he or she is enjoying in the conversation
that is taking place.
The argumentation speech has the purpose to appeal to the intellect of the
audience or listeners so that the speaker can be able to win them over the
speakers side. It can be done using the force of logical interference and sound
reasoning. The argumentation speech further aims to persuade the audience to
be able to assert the plausibility of a debatable question in the speaker side.
The persuasive speech has the purpose to make the audience do a certain act.
In doing this, the speaker will first demolish the objections of the audience
politely. After, the speaker must prove to the audience that the argument he or
she emphasizes is acceptable. Finally, the speaker should impress the audience
and convinced them that the plan or his argument is desirable; by doing this
the speaker will be receptive in his plea for an action from the audience.
METHODS OF REASONING
Reasoning is the process of using existing knowledge to draw
conclusions, make predictions, or construct explanations. Three methods of
reasoning are the deductive, inductive, and abductive approaches.
Deductive reasoning starts with the assertion of a general rule and
proceeds from there to a guaranteed specific conclusion. Deductive reasoning
moves from the general rule to the specific application: In deductive reasoning,
if the original assertions are true, then the conclusion must also be true. For
example, math is deductive:
If x = 4
And if y = 1
Then 2x + y = 9
In this example, it is a logical necessity that 2x + y equals 9; 2x + y
must equal 9. As a matter of fact, formal, symbolic logic uses a language that
looks rather like the math equality above, complete with its own operators and
syntax. But a deductive syllogism (think of it as a plain-English version of a
math equality) can be expressed in ordinary language:

If entropy (disorder) in a system will increase unless energy is expended,

And if my living room is a system,
Then disorder will increase in my living room unless I clean it.
In the syllogism above, the first two statements, the propositions or
premises, lead logically to the third statement, the conclusion. Here is another
example:
A medical technology ought to be funded if it has been used successfully to
treat patients.
Adult stem cells are being used to treat patients successfully in more than
sixty-five new therapies.
Adult stem cell research and technology should be funded.
A conclusion is sound (true) or unsound (false), depending on the truth of the
original premises (for any premise may be true or false). At the same time,
independent of the truth or falsity of the premises, thedeductive inference itself
(the process of "connecting the dots" from premise to conclusion) is
either valid or invalid. The inferential processcan be valid even if the premise is
false:
There is no such thing as drought in the West.
California is in the West.
California need never make plans to deal with a drought.
In the example above, though the inferential process itself is valid, the
conclusion is false because the premise, There is no such thing as drought in
the West, is false. A syllogism yields a false conclusion if either of its
propositions is false. A syllogism like this is particularly insidious because it
looks so very logicalit is, in fact, logical. But whether in error or malice, if
either of the propositions above is wrong, then a policy decision based upon it
(California need never make plans to deal with a drought) probably would fail to
serve the public interest.
Assuming the propositions are sound, the rather stern logic of deductive
reasoning can give you absolutely certain conclusions. However, deductive
reasoning cannot really increase human knowledge (it isnonampliative) because
the conclusions yielded by deductive reasoning are tautologies-statements that
are contained within the premises and virtually self-evident. Therefore, while
with deductive reasoning we can make observations and expand implications,

we cannot make
phenomena.

predictions

about

future

or

otherwise

non-observed

Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and

limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not
certain, in light of accumulated evidence. You could say that inductive
reasoning moves from the specific to the general. Much scientific research is
carried out by the inductive method: gathering evidence, seeking patterns, and
forming a hypothesis or theory to explain what is seen.
Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logical necessities;
no amount of inductive evidence guarantees the conclusion. This is because
there is no way to know that all the possible evidence has been gathered, and
that there exists no further bit of unobserved evidence that might invalidate my
hypothesis. Thus, while the newspapers might report the conclusions of
scientific research as absolutes, scientific literature itself uses more cautious
language, the language of inductively reached, probable conclusions:
What we have seen is the ability of these cells to feed the blood vessels of
tumors and to heal the blood vessels surrounding wounds. The findings
suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal source of cells for
clinical therapy. For example, we can envision the use of these stem cells
for therapies against cancer tumors [...].
Because inductive conclusions are not logical necessities, inductive
arguments are not simply true. Rather, they are cogent: that is, the evidence
seems complete, relevant, and generally convincing, and the conclusion is
therefore probably true. Nor are inductive arguments simply false; rather, they
are not cogent.
It is an important difference from deductive reasoning that, while
inductive reasoning cannot yield an absolutely certain conclusion, it can
actually increase human knowledge (it is ampliative). It can make predictions
about future events or as-yet unobserved phenomena.
For example, Albert Einstein observed the movement of a pocket compass
when he was five years old and became fascinated with the idea that something
invisible in the space around the compass needle was causing it to move. This
observation, combined with additional observations (of moving trains, for
example) and the results of logical and mathematical tools (deduction), resulted

in a rule that fit his observations and could predict events that were as yet
unobserved.
Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of
observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set.
Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best
with the information at hand, which often is incomplete.
A medical diagnosis is an application of abductive reasoning: given this
set of symptoms, what is the diagnosis that would best explain most of them?
Likewise, when jurors hear evidence in a criminal case, they must consider
whether the prosecution or the defense has the best explanation to cover all the
points of evidence. While there may be no certainty about their verdict, since
there may exist additional evidence that was not admitted in the case, they
make their best guess based on what they know.
While cogent inductive reasoning requires that the evidence that might
shed light on the subject be fairly complete, whether positive or negative,
abductive reasoning is characterized by lack of completeness, either in the
evidence, or in the explanation, or both. A patient may be unconscious or fail to
report every symptom, for example, resulting in incomplete evidence, or a
doctor may arrive at a diagnosis that fails to explain several of the symptoms.
Still, he must reach the best diagnosis he can.
The abductive process can be creative, intuitive, even revolutionary.
Einstein's work, for example, was not just inductive and deductive, but involved
a creative leap of imagination and visualization that scarcely seemed warranted
by the mere observation of moving trains and falling elevators. In fact, so much
of Einstein's work was done as a "thought experiment" (for he never
experimentally dropped elevators), that some of his peers discredited it as too
fanciful. Nevertheless, he appears to have been right-until now his remarkable
conclusions about space-time continue to be verified experientially.

TRUTH TABLE
A truth table is a mathematical table used in logicspecifically in
connection with Boolean algebra, boolean functions, and propositional calculus
to compute the functional values of logical expressions on each of their
functional arguments, that is, on each combination of values taken by their
logical variables (Enderton, 2001). In particular, truth tables can be used to tell

whether a propositional expression is true for all legitimate input values, that
is, logically valid.
Practically, a truth table is composed of one column for each input
variable (for example, A and B), and one final column for all of the possible
results of the logical operation that the table is meant to represent (for
example, A XOR B). Each row of the truth table therefore contains one possible
configuration of the input variables (for instance, A=true B=false), and the
result of the operation for those values. See the examples below for further
clarification. Ludwig Wittgenstein is often credited with their invention in
theTractatus Logico-Philosophicus, though they appeared at least a year earlier
in a paper on propositional logic by Emil Leon Post.

BASIC TYPES OF SPEECHES and

METHODS OF REASONING

Submitted by:
GARCIA, John Ray
(Legal Techniques)