Quantity versus quality Effects of argumentation in bad news letters

Abstract

Does the approach used to assess negative messages differ depending on the number of reasons considered or the quality of those arguments? Two separate experiments, which involved the distribution of bad news letters, were carried out to explore this problem and find a solution. During these investigations, both the standard of the arguments and the total number of arguments were realistically varied in response to the conditions surrounding the probe. The results of the two experiments suggest that including logic in letters not only makes them appear more courteous to the reader but also increases the persuasive power of the letters. Both sets of findings from the study led in this direction. The study's findings also show that the influence of persuasive arguments is far more significant than that of arguments that are not persuasive.
 Furthermore, it has been proved that the subsequent arguments contribute to reinforcing the conclusion. The findings, on the other hand, demonstrate that just one or two arguments are required to substantiate a claim. Adding a third reason does not significantly improve the results; rather, it leads to a marginal improvement in the scores.