Persuasion Lab: From Brief to Finished Case

This part has two stages. First a guided diagnosis to train your eye on a flawed proposal, then a full lab where you write your own. Together they take about 65 minutes.

Warm-Up: Diagnose a Flawed Proposal

Before writing your own, train your eye on someone else’s. Read the proposal below and mark every weakness you can find against the six-point checklist. Then compare with the annotated key.

Flawed proposal (read critically):

Hi committee,

I’ve been a member here for ages and I think I know what’s best for the group, so I’m sure you’ll agree we should buy a new gazebo for outdoor events. The old one is rubbish. It rained last time and everyone got wet which was really annoying and not a good look for us at all. A new one is only like a few hundred dollars probably. We should definitely get one. Trust me on this.

Diagnostic checklist, mark yes/no for the draft:

Annotated key, what is wrong and why:

• Claim (1): the ask is vague (“a new gazebo”) with no cost, model, or timing. Fix: name the item, the budget, and when.

• Evidence (2): “rubbish,” “really annoying,” “a few hundred probably” are feelings and guesses, not facts. Fix: give the actual cost and the number of events affected.

• Concession (3): none, the writer assumes agreement. Fix: acknowledge the cost or the working alternative.

• Ethos (4): “I’ve been a member for ages… trust me” is bragging, which weakens credibility rather than building it. Fix: let the evidence carry the authority.

• Call to action (5): “we should definitely get one” sets no decision or deadline. Fix: ask for a specific approval at a specific meeting.

• Tone (6): dismissive (“rubbish,” “trust me on this”) for a committee. Fix: courteous and neutral.

Six “no” answers, this draft fails on every count. The lab below is your chance to write one that passes all six.

Your Turn!

Work through this in one sitting (about 40 minutes), then check your work against the criteria grid and the model solution at the end of this chapter.

The brief. You volunteer for a neighborhood library group. The group has a small budget surplus. You believe it should fund a monthly “read-aloud” session for young children, but the committee is cautious and one member thinks the money should be saved. Write a short proposal (150–200 words) to persuade the committee.

Before you write, plan with these prompts:

• Claim: what exactly are you asking the committee to approve?

• Audience: what does a cautious committee care about most?

• Appeals: which mix of ethos, pathos, and logos fits this reader?

• Concession/refutation: what is the saver’s objection, and how will you answer it?

• Call to action: what specific decision do you want, and by when?

Criteria grid, score your own draft (yes/no):

Aim for six “yes” answers. Any “no” tells you exactly what to revise.

Let’s Recap!

• A finished case passes all six checks: claim, evidence, concession, ethos, call to action, tone.

• Diagnosing a flawed proposal trains the eye you then apply to your own.

• Lead with the ask and keep the call to action specific and time-bound.

• A reversible, low-risk proposal (a short trial) is easier for a cautious reader to approve.

• This is the standard your Written Communication project proposal should meet.

Congratulations on reaching the end of this course. To finish, check your understanding with the quiz that follows.

Model Solution

Proposal: a monthly read-aloud session for young children

I propose we use part of this year’s surplus to fund a monthly read-aloud session for under-sevens, at about $25 per session for books and refreshments (claim).

Our mission is to bring reading to the neighborhood, and there is currently nothing for our youngest residents (ethos and shared values). Families with young children are the one group we rarely reach (logical reasoning), and three parents have already asked me when something like this might start (evidence).

I know some of us would rather hold the surplus in reserve (concession). But $25 a month is a small, predictable cost, and we can review attendance after three sessions and stop if it is not working (refutation), so the risk is limited and reversible.

Could we approve a three-month trial at the next meeting, starting in October? (call to action)

This draft scores six “yes” answers: claim first, two reasoning types, a clear refutation, an appeal mix suited to cautious readers, a concrete call to action, and a courteous committee-appropriate register.