ABSTRACT
If advocates are too abrupt with their audience, the audience may be startled and uncomfortable and may reflexively resist the argument. On the other hand, arguments that are structured to appear more gradual and deliberate are more persuasive because they more closely track the decision-making process of the audience, one step at a time. The gradual approach works because human beings like consistency. Even if an advocate does not know the decision maker's beliefs, and we often do not, the advocate can present an argument that makes the decision maker feel consistent. By breaking down a controversial premise into components with which the decision maker is likely to agree, the advocate can build and influence the decision maker's relevant cache of prior decisions. Negotiators use a version of the compromise or "door-in-the-face" tactic frequently. Despite the benefits of the compromise tactic, arguments are less common in legal advocacy because many legal advocates see them as a sign of weakness.
