We commit this fallacy when, instead of attacking an opponent’s views, we attack the opponent. What makes this a fallacy is the disconnect between the reason and the claim.

An extremely common technique is to suggest that a claim is true because it is widely accepted. Of course, we do legitimately need to refer to other people's opinions as guides to our own at times.

Obviously, lying about who we are or what we believe in is not a valid way to build trust. An appeal to a shared identity that is not really shared or an appeal to a shared value that the writer does not really hold is certainly a breach of trust.

If we describe their ideas and feelings with accuracy, respect and empathy, they may soften. If they feel seen rather than judged, they may be more open to what we have to say.

Just as arguments can change tone and emotional appeal, they can appeal to trust differently and create different imagined relationships with the reader at different moments. Arguments don’t need to choose one point of view and stick with it; many arguments move between “I,” “we,” “you” and the impersonal, shifting from sentence to sentence. Too many shifts could be jarring for the reader, but some variety can be refreshing. Thus, a single argument can offer different ways for the reader to relate to the ideas at hand.

As readers, we want to believe that the writer is giving us a fair overview of what they know. If a writer fails to mention something relevant that makes them look bad, readers may well hear it from an opponent and consider the writer to have wrongly concealed it. Acknowledging points that actually hurt the writer's argument can help to demonstrate openness and honesty. This includes a writer's motivations, even those that involve self-interest.

A part of our trust in a writer or in another person in any relationship is based on our perception of their moral character.

f the reader feels that the writer understands the reader's perspective and uses that understanding to make the experience of reading the argument as straightforward and intellectually pleasant as possible, the reader will trust the writer more

Regardless of how formal or informal or how intimate or distanced the argument is, if the reader feels the writer is disrespectful and doesn’t care about the reader’s perspective or experience, the reader will lose trust.

We don’t tend to trust people who don’t respect us and don’t wish us well.

Apart from the question of whether or not referring to another group is right in a specific case, writers should also be aware of ways in which negative references can undermine trust, especially if the audience ends up being broader than the writer initially envisioned. Sometimes putting the opposition in a group can backfire and hurt an argument more than it help.

Sometimes writers feel that the most powerful thing they have in common with readers is opposition to a group rather than membership in a group. They can try to get readers on their side by focusing on a group they presume the reader does not or will not want to belong to. Defining that group negatively becomes the basis for unity and trust between writer and reader

Even if the group identity in question is not an emotionally charged one, referring to it can help readers feel connected to the writer and the argument

One way to create sense of connection and trust is to point to an identity that writer and reader share. If emotions are bound up in that identity, this can be a powerful way to gain trust and to encourage readers to care about the argument.

many arguments in academic journals nowadays do use “I” on occasion, especially in introductions and conclusions. They use it judiciously when the personal experience of the writer is relevant to the argument. In addition to offering an emotional connection, personal anecdotes give readers a sense that the author is a person who is reaching out to us as people.

An argument could be both intimate and formal, like a marriage vow, but that combination is rare. Usually the more comfortable we are and the more we share about ourselves in an argument, the less formal the style. Conversely, the less formal the style, the friendlier and more connected the argument usually feels

This approach to earning the reader's trust is all about setting aside the personal to pursue objective, neutral, unbiased pronouncements. It requires the writer to step back from their own personality and feelings to ally their speech with impersonal truth

n academic research papers, we want readers to see that we have done due diligence and can represent a range of authorities on the subject.

When a writer has no particular qualification in relation to the subject, they can still establish a certain degree of authority by citing authoritative sources

Even though she has no experience of immigration, she can be considered an authority on her own sense of morality.

we can speak with authority

We are all authorities on our own experiences, feelings, and values

they can provide evidence of that reputation

How can a writer convince us that they are an expert on a topic? In general, they need to show that experts in their field have recognized some level of competence or leadership in them

So the most common and ready way to establish trust is to make sure readers know what makes the writer an authority on the subject at hand

Focusing on trust and relationship allows us to see how nuanced argument can be and how varied its effects on different readers. An argument is not an equation. Not only does it affect our emotions, but, like a movie, a song, a novel, or a poem, it invites us into a lived experience

When we analyze an argument, we can ask ourselves what kind of roles and interactions the words imply.

he writer draws the reader close, beckons the reader to their side, or holds the reader at arm's length. They choose a style typical of the role they imagine, whether of a friend, confidante, preacher, doctor, or expert

To understand each of these approaches to trust, it will help to think of an argument not as words blared through a loudspeaker into the void, but as an offering within the context of a relationship.

Trust provides an underlying foundation for the success of emotional and logical appeals.

we saw in Chapter 8, arguments attempt to affect our emotions, but their success depends on how well writers have gauged their readers' values and cultural associations. Now we can back up and look at readers' responses through a different lens: that of trust.