7.2: Using Support and Building Arguments

Learning Objectives

1. Explain two criteria used to evaluate support*
2. Explain how to distinguish between useful and non-useful forms of support.
3. Understand the five ways support is used within a speech.
4. Define “reasoning”
5. Critique the logical coherence and reliability of AI-generated arguments
6. Explain the three-step process for using support within a speech.

In this section, we’ll cover how to choose effective supporting material. Then we’ll dive into the next step in your process: how you can start building your argument through clear reasoning.

Sifting Through Your Support

When researching a topic, you will find a range of different types of supporting material: facts and statistics, definitions, examples, narratives, testimony, and analogies. Evaluate all sources to ensure their validity, and be strategic and selective about the research you use to support your speech.

Fact-Check Strategies

Lateral Reading

When doing online research, lateral reading is a must. It is a strategy for evaluating online information by leaving the original source to investigate what others say about it. Instead of staying on one website to judge its credibility, open new tabs to check the source’s background, reputation, and reliability. Coined by Sam Wineburg, researcher and founder of the Stanford History Education Group, this method helps us think like fact-checkers, especially in our era of potential misinformation, deepfakes, and biased content (Wineburg et al., 2020).

The SIFT Method

When you encounter information online, whether it’s a shocking statistic, an expert quote, or breaking news, don’t just accept it at face value. Use the SIFT Method, developed by digital literacy expert Mike Caulfield, to quickly evaluate sources like a professional fact-checker (Caulfield & Wineburg, 2023). This simple process takes less than a minute and can save you from citing unreliable information in your speeches and presentations.

For up-to-the-minute AI fact-checking, Mike Caulfield consistently develops, checks, and delivers resources on his free Substack, The End(s) of Argument. For those ready for a deep dive into complex AI prompts on ChatGPT, explore his post from June 15, 2025, when he released “Deep Background: Fact-checks and Context”. Happy testing! (Caulfield, 2025)

Consider This…

Both lateral reading and the SIFT Method fact-checking are reactive evaluation techniques, that is, “Here is what I found, what do I think of it?” As you solidify a purpose and conduct research, you may discover content in front of you after exploring topics on the Internet that you’ve never explored before. Your algorithmic personification is broadening. What does that mean? Your online life is well-known to technology companies, and as such, everyday activity information is stored, tracked, utilized, and shared. Networked efforts can flood your feeds, timelines, and search results. In this era, the process of proactive evaluation allows you to keep facts – and technology – in check. That is, “Because I understand where this information came from and why I’m seeing it, I can trust it for this kind of information, and for this purpose.”

When it’s ok:

You are researching for your speech that pets should be adopted from the rescue shelter instead of purchased from a puppy mill. You visited Instagram, YouTube, used Google, ChatGPT, went to over 15 websites, and you even had a text exchange with one of your parent’s friends that worked at a local shelter. Almost immediately, you start receiving a stream of ads on your Instagram feed for the ASPCA, Google’s homepage showed a news story about a recent puppy mill bust in your area. Even ChatGPT seemed to “remember” your interest, continually offering suggestions for pet care and volunteering.

When it’s not:

You watch a YouTube video about alternative pet vaccines out of curiosity. Soon after, your feed is flooded with videos pushing unverified claims about pet health, anti-vet rhetoric, and conspiracy theories about animal shelters. Ads and search results start reinforcing these ideas, making it harder to find trustworthy information. The algorithm, designed to feed you more of what you engage with, creates a bubble of disinformation which makes it feel like this skewed viewpoint is widely accepted, when it’s not.

Use a Variety of Supporting Material

Think of supporting material like ingredients in your favorite meal. You wouldn’t make tacos with just tortillas, and you shouldn’t build a speech with just statistics. Mix it up to keep your audience engaged and make your points stick.

Different people connect with different types of evidence. Some love hard numbers and data, while others are moved by personal stories. Some individuals require concrete examples, while others respond to expert opinions. When you use multiple types of support, you’re speaking everyone’s language.

Here’s how it works in practice:

The bottom line is this: don’t rely on just one type of evidence throughout your entire speech. We recommend you rehearse 5 times (at least) before you actually give your speech. While practicing, if you find yourself saying “according to another study” for the fourth time, pause and ask yourself: Could I tell a story here instead? Would an example work better? Your audience will thank you for the variety.

Try It! Supporting Material Checklist: Strengthen Your Claim

 

Final Supporting Material Review

Not all evidence works for every speech. When you are making final edits, choose the support that fits your specific audience, context, and specific purpose.

Consider your context: Testimony might work great in an informative speech, but they could fall flat if your general purpose is to entertain. Narratives can be powerful for persuasion, but might hurt your credibility in a formal business proposal that calls for facts and statistics.

Know your audience: Starting with “Remember when TikTok first launched?” might not land with a room full of professors. Similarly, testimony from experts your peers have never heard of won’t be as compelling as examples they can relate to.

Stay focused: You might find three amazing statistics that all support your point, but using all three could overwhelm your audience. Pick the strongest one and save the others for another speech. Quality over quantity; your goal is to support your argument, not bury it under a pile of evidence.

Keep it relevant: Every piece of supporting material should directly advance your specific purpose. That hilarious narrative about your dog might be entertaining, but if it doesn’t help prove your argument about campus sustainability, cut it. Your audience will notice when you go off track, and your credibility will suffer.

Forming Your Speech Support

You’ve gathered, evaluated, and completed a final review of your supporting material. Now comes the exciting part: bringing it to life in your speech! How do you use it so your audience understands, trusts, and remembers your message?

Let’s walk through five common forms of speech support and how to use each effectively: quotations, paraphrases, summaries, numbers, and visuals.

Quotations

Direct quotations use another speaker’s or writer’s exact words within your speech. Here’s how to make quotations work for you:

• Famous quotes. Choose quotes that make people lean forward. Witty, surprising, or beautifully crafted words that stick will do the trick. Maya Angelou’s “There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you” hits differently than a bland summary of her philosophy.
• Focus on expertise. When Patrick Blanc, botanist and the modern expert of the “green wall”, explains why vertical gardens could revolutionize cities, his words carry weight that yours alone might not.
• the details matter. Iconic American designer and architect Charles Eames said “Details are not details. They make the design.” If you’re analyzing how AI chatbots reveal unconscious bias, you need those exact algorithmic prompts, not your interpretation of them.
• It’s YOUR speech. Quotes should enhance your voice, not replace it. Nobody wants to hear a greatest hits compilation when they came for your original insights.
• Keep it brief. Long quotes are like long elevator rides, everyone gets uncomfortable. Get in, make your point, get out.

Paraphrases

Paraphrasing is your chance to be a translator, taking someone else’s complex ideas and making them accessible to your audience. It’s collaboration at its finest:

• Clarity. When a researcher’s methodology takes three paragraphs to explain, you can distill it: “Dr. Tchounga’s team followed college students’ phone habits for six months and discovered something surprising.”
• Simplify. Academic jargon might impress professors, but it often confuses audiences.
• Freshen up. That 1990s case study about office communication? Transform it into insights about Zoom fatigue and remote work challenges.
• Be prepared. Use paraphrases for straightforward information, but when your audience might raise eyebrows, bring out the direct quotes for backup.

Summaries

Sometimes you need to paint the big picture before diving into details. Summaries are your wide-angle lens, capturing entire arguments or movements in digestible form:

• Start with a summary. When discussing AI ethics, you might need to summarize an entire philosophical framework before exploring its real-world applications.
• Present both sides. “Critics of universal basic income worry about three main issues…” gives your audience the full counterargument landscape.
• Compare support sources. “Whether you look at Stanford’s sleep studies, MIT’s productivity research, or Toronto’s mental health findings, the message is clear…”

Numerical Support

Numbers tell stories, but only if you help them speak clearly. Data can be your most persuasive ally or your biggest enemy, if mishandled:

• Clearly confirm sources. “According to Pew Research’s 2024 study of 2,000 teenagers…” tells your audience exactly where this information comes from and why it matters.
• Emphasize data. Don’t just say “ChatGPT gained 100 million users in two months.” Supplement that this makes it the fastest-growing consumer app in history; faster than TikTok, Instagram, or any previous technology.
• Clarify complex information. When you’re juggling multiple statistics about renewable energy adoption, a simple visual can transform confusion into understanding.

Visual Support

Visual support is where your speech comes alive. Images and videos don’t just support your argument, they make it unforgettable. For example, you can explain digital manipulation by displaying TikTok’s algorithm interface. Showing how biodegradable packaging dissolves in water adds clarity to verbal description.

Here’s how to make visuals work their magic:

• Show, don’t just tell. Explaining proper ergonomics? Show it. Describing cultural dance movements? Have a YouTube video on standby. Some things simply can’t be captured in words alone.
• Double your impact. When audiences see and hear information simultaneously, they remember it better. Your visual becomes a memory anchor.
• Use high-quality visual support. Blurry photos and AI-generated images with miscalculated fingers can undermine everything you’ve built. Quality matters.
• Make sure everyone can see. If people in the back can’t see your visuals, you’ve lost half your audience. Make sure your visuals are visible to all.
• Explain the connection. Don’t assume your audience sees what you see. Always explain how your visual strengthens your point. Make that connection crystal clear.

Try It! AI-Generated Art: Visual Support for Your Speech

Now that you’ve dug deep into supporting material, assessed its strengths and weaknesses, and started making selections to support the specific purpose of your speech, the real work begins. Building arguments is the crux of your speech, where the credibility, accuracy, and relevance of your timely evidence reigns. Beyond the podium, understanding an evidence-based argument, both as a consumer and a creator, is key to successful communication.

Understanding Arguments

You may associate the word “argument” with a situation in which two people are having some kind of conflict. But in the context of giving a speech, we consider a definition that originated with the ancient Greeks, who saw arguments as a set of logical premises leading to a clear conclusion. Fast forward to our 21st century. Arguments can come at us with and without our permission, in our social media feed, through disinformation-fueled websites, and AI-generated loops. Arguments aren’t always clear-cut, and our critical thinking skills are needed.

Now, you’ve started to build an argument. You’ve solidified a strategic purpose, confirmed your support, and a claim is starting to crystallize. Your inner Greek is motivated! The claim is the statement you want the audience to accept; what you are trying to prove. Even more, you’re finding credible sources with a variety of supporting material that backs up this claim. So you’re ready to move on to the next claim, right? Wrong!

You might have made the connection between your support and your claim, but will it be evident to your audience? Make sure your argument is logical, sound, and understood by all, which means you AND the audience, by conducting the process of reasoning.

What Is Reasoning?

Reasoning is how we connect the dots in an argument; it links the support to your claim so that you and your audience can decide whether the evidence really does support it (Zarefsky & Engels, 2019). In a speech, sound reasoning helps your audience understand not just what you’re saying, but why it makes sense.

How it works:

• Claim – what you’re trying to convince your audience of
• Support – the evidence for your claim
• Reasoning – the logical “leap” that links them together

Your argument needs to take that mental leap, otherwise referred to as an inference, because it’s the explanation, the “so what?”, that makes your message click with your audience.

This example makes a strong inference that fast food is not only a risk for obesity, but for early-onset type 2 diabetes as well. The official topic of this student’s speech is not explicit.

If this were your claim, what thesis would you be supporting?

Fast food restaurants should be banned within a 5 mile radius of K-12 schools in the United States.

This is a strong statement, but you could come from many angles on the topic of children’s health.

Strong vs. Weak Reasoning

Let’s look at a few more examples. Strong reasoning makes clear, logical connections. Weak reasoning leaves your audience confused or, even worse, in doubt that they can trust your argument.

Table 7.3: Strong vs Weak Reasoning Examples

Example	Strong or Weak?	Why?
Claim: Students should drink more water. Support: The human body is 60% water. Reasoning: We need to maintain that 60% water level in our bodies in order to keep our brains functioning properly, regulate body temperature, and transport nutrients, which is why staying hydrated helps you think clearly and avoid fatigue during long study sessions.	Strong	The reasoning clearly explains the biological connection and links it to specific student benefits.
Claim: Campus mental health services should be expanded. Support: Dr. Sarah Martinez, Director of Student Counseling at State University, reports that 40% of students seeking help are turned away due to a lack of availability. Reasoning: When nearly half of the students can’t access the mental health support they’re actively seeking, it creates a crisis that affects academic performance and student wellbeing across campus.	Strong	Uses expert testimony and explains why the statistic matters for the broader student community.
Claim: Everyone should switch to electric cars. Support: I saw a Tesla commercial that looked cool. Reasoning: The cars look slick, so they should be worth buying!	Weak	The reasoning makes a huge logical leap from “looks cool in an ad” to “everyone should buy one”. It completely ignores cost, practicality, and environmental impact.
Claim: We should ban soda in schools. Support: Soda has more sugar than we realize. Reasoning: Therefore, soda should be banned.	Weak	This is still a logical leap. You need to explain exactly how much sugar, why that amount is harmful, and why a ban is the best solution.

What About AI?

AI tools like ChatGPT, Copilot, or Google Gemini can help you brainstorm ideas and even construct your speech. But when you begin building your arguments, AI is far from perfect. Here’s what to watch out for:

Evidence mismatch

Let’s say you are searching for information about the first African-American woman in the field of veterinary medicine, Dr. Jane Hinton and, because of her rare significance, you ask ChatGPT, “Please provide facts and expert testimony, examples, and stories about veterinarian Dr. Jane Hinton.” In seconds, you begin to receive organized facts, quotes from articles about Dr. Jane Hinton, a link to her obituary, and her profile and current course list at SUNY. Wait, what? Dr. Jane Hinton, the pioneer of female representation in STEM research, and veterinary medicine, passed away in 2003. A real professor, living in 2025, is a bridge between your prompted, accurate result and a similar academic female meeting similar criteria.

Logical leaps

Imagine you’re preparing a speech about social media’s impact on mental health. You ask AI: “How does Instagram use affect teenagers’ self-esteem?” AI might respond: “Studies show that teenagers who use Instagram for more than 2 hours daily have 40% higher rates of depression. Therefore, Instagram directly causes depression in teens.” Hold on: that’s a logical leap! AI jumped from correlation (Instagram use and depression occur together) to causation (Instagram causes depression) without considering other factors. Maybe teens who are already struggling with mental health spend more time on social media as a coping mechanism. Always question whether AI’s reasoning actually follows logically from the evidence it presents.

Repetitive bias

You’re researching leadership styles for a presentation and ask AI about effective CEO characteristics. AI consistently describes leaders using words like “decisive,” “aggressive,” and “commanding,” which are traits traditionally associated with male leadership. When you ask specifically about female CEOs, it might emphasize “collaborative” and “nurturing” styles. This isn’t coincidence; it’s bias from the AI’s training data reflecting societal stereotypes. AI isn’t intentionally discriminating, but it’s repeating patterns from countless articles, books, and websites that contain these biases. When supporting your claim comparing Meta CEO Mark Zuckerburg to Sheryl Sandberg (former Meta COO), do you find that these characteristics are accurate as you dig deeper? Always ask yourself: whose perspectives might be missing from this response?

Confident confusion

AI never says “I don’t know.” Ask it about a highly technical medical procedure, and it will confidently explain complex steps, even if some details are completely wrong. You might ask about “neuroplastic rehabilitation techniques for stroke patients” and receive what sounds like expert medical advice, complete with specific percentages and treatment timelines. The problem? AI generates responses that sound authoritative even when it’s essentially making educated guesses. Just because AI presents information confidently doesn’t mean it’s accurate. Always verify important claims with credible sources.

Perfect puzzle pieces

When you research complex issues like climate change or immigration policy, real experts usually acknowledge uncertainty, conflicting evidence, and limitations in their data. AI, however, often presents information that fits together too neatly, like puzzle pieces that create a perfect picture without any missing pieces or rough edges. If AI gives you a response about a controversial topic without mentioning any counterarguments, conflicting studies, or areas where experts disagree, that’s a red flag. Real-world issues are messy; if AI makes them seem simple and clear-cut, dig deeper.

AI Reasoning

Remember, reasoning is how you connect the dots between your evidence and your claims; it’s what helps your audience understand why your argument makes sense. But when AI gives you fabricated evidence, illogical connections, biased perspectives, or oversimplified explanations, it’s undermining the foundation of sound reasoning. You can’t build strong arguments on shaky ground. That’s why every piece of AI-generated content needs your critical evaluation before it becomes part of your speech. Your job isn’t just to gather information, it’s to ensure that information can actually support the reasoning process your audience deserves.

Tip: Always check whether the reasoning in an AI-generated argument makes sense. Ask yourself: “Does the support truly prove the point?” And “Would my audience follow this logic?”

Try It! Check AI Results: Is It Trustworthy?

Wrap-Up: Credible support = traceable sources + independent verification + no red flags. Keep AI as your brainstorming partner, not your proof. Verify everything before you cite it.

• Keep in mind the role that AI plays: it is an assistant, not a human replacement. Remember: you are in charge, and you are responsible for what you present!
• Bonus Tools:
  • Google Fact Check Explorer
  • Snopes.com

Make Your Reasoning Explicit

When making that mental leap, you can rely on three common reasoning patterns to connect your evidence to your conclusion. Causal reasoning establishes that one event leads to another, analogical reasoning draws comparisons between similar situations, and sign reasoning uses indicators to point toward larger conclusions. Let’s explore how these different types of reasoning work with various forms of support.

Causal Reasoning: “Because A happened, B will result”

Establishes a cause-and-effect relationship

Use expert testimony:

• Claim: “Social media addiction significantly impacts teenage mental health”
• Support: Dr. Sarah Chen, an adolescent psychologist at the local hospital, states: “We’re seeing unprecedented levels of anxiety and depression in teens who spend more than four hours daily on social platforms”
• Reasoning: “This happens because constant comparison and dopamine-driven feedback from likes rewires our developing brains, creating social media habits that harm healthy emotional control.”

Use a narrative:

• Claim: “Mentorship programs transform at-risk students’ academic trajectories”
• Support: “Maria Rodriguez entered high school with a 1.8 GPA and frequent absences. After joining our peer mentorship program, she maintained a 3.4 GPA her senior year and earned a college scholarship”
• Reasoning: “This transformation occurs because consistent one-on-one support addresses the root causes of academic struggle (often lack of guidance and low expectations), which gives students both practical skills and renewed confidence in their abilities”

Analogical Reasoning: “Since X is like Y, what’s true for X is true for Y”

A comparison of people, places, things, events; or more abstract relationships

With a fact:

• Claim: “Our elementary schools should adopt play-based learning curricula”
• Support: “Finland’s education system ranks first globally while emphasizing play-based learning”
• Reasoning: “Like Finland, our elementary schools could benefit from this approach because young children develop cognitive skills more effectively through interactive, enjoyable activities than through rote instruction”

With a personal narrative:

• Claim: “Community gardens strengthen neighborhood bonds and reduce crime”
• Support: “In Detroit’s Corktown district, resident Lisa Thompson recalls: ‘Before the garden, I barely knew my neighbors. Now we share recipes, watch each other’s kids, and crime dropped 40% in two years'”
• Reasoning: “Like other revitalized neighborhoods, areas with community gardens create natural surveillance and social investment. When people care about a shared space, they protect it and each other”

Sign Reasoning: “A indicates B”

One thing stands for another

With expert testimony:

• Claim: “The local housing market is entering a dangerous bubble”
• Support: Real estate analyst David Park notes: “When average home prices exceed six times median household income, markets historically face major corrections within 18 months”
• Reasoning: “These warning signs indicate unsustainable speculation. When working families can’t afford homes in their own communities, the economic foundation becomes too narrow to support continued price growth”

With eyewitness account:

• Claim: “Emergency mental health services on campus are critically understaffed”
• Support: “Junior Ali Khan waited three weeks for a counseling appointment after experiencing panic attacks, saying: ‘I called every day, but they kept putting me on a waiting list. By the time I got help, I’d already failed two midterms'”
• Reasoning: “These delays reveal a system stretched beyond capacity—when students in crisis face weeks-long waits, it indicates staffing levels inadequate for actual demand, putting vulnerable students at serious risk”

Regardless of which reasoning pattern you use, always make your logical connection explicit. Your audience needs to understand not just what you believe and why you believe it, but how you arrived at that conclusion. This transparency builds trust and allows listeners to evaluate your argument fairly, which is the hallmark of ethical persuasion.

The Claim, Support, Reasoning process will help you craft clear, logical arguments that your audience can easily follow and evaluate.

In the next section, we’ll cover the importance of supporting your arguments, how to assess them, avoid reasoning pitfalls, and how to confirm relevance and credibility.

^[1]