Selective evidence:
When sources of evidences are used to support claims made in a sales presentation that evidence needs to be appropriate, not selective. When it is selective we are being coerced into committing ourselves to an underlying claim that is not wholly supported by the facts.
Proof by selective evidence is an extremely common form of dishonest argument. In selecting evidence to support the worth or claims being made the salesperson presents to us only those pieces of evidence that shine a favourable light on their product or service. To add credibility to the worth of the claims made salespeople will often select independent sources. Such evidence might be a report in a newspaper or a trade journal. It might refer to an opinion poll. This has all the hallmarks of openness or transparency. But where are the independent reports that are not so favourable? Who commissioned the opinion poll?
However, I am sure if we sought out a competitor they too will have newspaper and trade journal reports which say how wonderful their product or service is. They might also have an opinion poll showing how they are preferred by eight out of ten users. Both companies can’t be the best. So where does the truth lay?
We should seek out counter-claims whenever possible. Do some online research, ask users of the product or service what their experiences have been. When selective evidence is deployed, the end being served by the salesperson is not the facts, but their own substantive interests.
Offering proof by selected instances is an attempt to present incomplete for complete evidence upon which we are supposed to make a decision; invariably favourable to the salesperson. Selected instances of this sort have no place in a sales presentation.
There are of course times when we know we must decide on certain purchases. Yet this no reason to settle for selective, and so incomplete, evidence. We should not be persuaded by selective instances that are favourable to the seller’s own ends, while ignoring the possibility of other instances that may not be so favourable. Claims need to be backed up and be subjected to testing when possible. We should do what you can to substantiate those claims being made rather than rely on the salesperson to merely stipulate them. We can help our own cause by doing some research in advance. If a salesperson is calling at your home ask around. Ask those you know if they have an experience of the company. Go online and do some research. Ask if you can speak to an existing customer to corroborate their claims. Be prepared to challenge the claims being made for the product or service.
There are of course instances when complete evidence does not exist. No one can know for certain what the stock markets will do in the future. No one can say for sure how interest rates will vary. No one can be sure what the state of the economy will be in twenty or thirty years. What our health will be next week. However, on practical questions of importance we should attempt to gather as much evidence for and against a decision as we can, and then make a decision.
Complex questions:
This is an extremely common ploy among salespeople. It works like this: the salesperson poses a question in such a way that we can neither agree nor disagree without committing to the claim being made.
Complex questions, or the many questions fallacy, although often manipulative, sometimes unethical, and improper do nevertheless have legitimate uses. They are often used in the form of leading questions by lawyers, police officers and journalist. They are essentially leading questions which are assumptive, implicative or intimidating.
However embedded in sales presentations assumptive questions are designed to take for granted the very question under discussion. The strategy being it is easier to start with a question that assumes the point you are seeking to make. This then makes it very difficult for the customer to think outside the scope of the question.
A classic example used to illustrate this is:
Are you still beating your spouse?’
Now, whatever way we answer we commit ourselves to the underlying claim - we are, or were, beating our spouse. What we need to be aware of is any questions asked that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted. For example:
Would you prefer the delivery on Tuesday or Wednesday?
Would you like it in red or green?
Do you want two or three copies?
Will you be investing three or four thousand?
Will you be paying by cash or debit card?
In these examples the complex question closes down debate as to whether we are going to buy. It assumes it is a done deal.
Embedded in a sales presentation the complex question shuts down other possibilities and confines an issue within narrow limits toward a predetermined end. But they are no more than tricks committing us to something we may not, given a fair question, agree to.
So obvious are these traps it is a wonder we fall for them, but we do. The reason they work is because they are asserted in confident and suggestive tones so as to imply they are the only choices - they are not. The only way of meeting the difficulty is to call into question the fallacious assumption being made.
Appeals to authority:
There are times when it would be right to heed the advice of an authority, others times not. If a pharmacist warns us not to drive when taking a prescribed drug, we would be foolhardy, and irresponsible to ignore that advice. But often appeals to authority are fallacious. If the same pharmacist advised me to invest in pork bellies I might want to get a second opinion, or at the very least establish their credentials in pork belly futures market.
During a sales presentation there are times when corroborative evidence might be useful to support a claim. The use of such evidence often comes in the form of an appeal to authority. Yet often what or who is being presented as an authority lacks the appropriate expertise or impartiality so we should not be too easily persuaded.
When celebrity endorsements are used as appeals to authority we need to be wary. Why should a celebrity know more about the effectiveness of a given product than you or I? Where they paid? Despite the highly questionable credentials of some ‘authorities’ we still find them being ranged against us in the drive for new business.
Another appeal to authority might be a list of blue chip clients using a particular product or service. But why should a company that makes aeroplanes, or bicycles be any more of an expert in photocopying supplies, heating equipment, or health plans than anyone else? Even in those cases when it might be argued that the client in question is an authority it is highly unlikely they use the services of just one company. And what about the other blue chip companies not on the list? Who are they buying from? Presumably these other companies thought a competitor offered a better product or service.
Whenever corroborative evidence is used it seems reasonable we should be able to satisfy ourselves on a number of issues. Is the source informed? Is the source impartial? Can the source be cross-checked? Not everyone will want to do this, and this is why the salesperson often gets away with questionable authority sources as supporting evidence.
However, not all appeals to authority are quite so overt. For example statements which take the form:
Everybody knows that …
All my clients prefer to …
Anyone who does … also does …
These are also appeals to authority. When such statements are used they are supposed to persuade us without giving a reason to show that ‘everybody’, ‘all’ and ‘anyone’ are an informed or impartial source.
To avoid being swayed by such statements we need to ask ourselves whether there is any good reason for supposing that in this case ‘everybody’, ‘all’, or ‘anyone’ is right. Simply being in the majority doesn’t make you right.
Another variation of the appeal to authority is to say something like:
This is how it has always been done.
We have always done it this way. Perhaps so, but it is not unreasonable for us to ask ourselves whether in light of new knowledge, or a new product, we have a reason to revise the way we have done things in the past.
We can, and should, do all we can to ensure decisions made are sound and free from appeals to questionable authorities.
Informed decision-making requires we have all the information necessary to make that decision. Being offered selective evidence, or asked trick questions, or being offered dubious authority sources are invariably attempts to get us to make a favourable, but ill-informed, decision.
In #3 I will look at Moving from the Particular to the General argument.