# PWR-140 — Persuasive communication: learner worksheet Release: Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition Estimated time: Estimated 26 min reading and worksheet pass Difficulty: Intermediate Equipment: Basic stationery or digital tools — a fictional low-stakes proposal to a consented audience.; A claim–reason–evidence card and a fact-checkable source for each factual statement.; A listener card with interests, questions and an explicit right to stop or refuse. Space: Desk / seated Automated structural checklist: 10 of 10 structural checks present Evidence quality/context: G2; Focused research depth Automated method-quality band: Comprehensive Method-rating basis: Structure coverage, instruction/check specificity, alternative distinctness, source troubleshooting, comparison depth and whether purpose/check fields are authored rather than derived. Editorial review: Pending manual editorial sign off ## Before you begin - [ ] I read the tutorial authority and stop conditions. - [ ] I have the required equipment/space or a declared accessible alternative. ## Canonical source context This lesson teaches ethical persuasion for a fictional or reversible proposal: define the choice, learn the audience’s stated interests, separate facts from values, give claim–reason–evidence, disclose uncertainty and invite refusal. It excludes deception, coercion and exploitation. Target outcome: The learner delivers a two-minute proposal whose listener can accurately teach back the claim, evidence, uncertainty and right to refuse. ### Authority and setup conditions - Prepare a fictional, reversible proposal such as choosing one of two practice-room layouts, presented to a consented role-play partner - Before the first persuasive communication attempt, write the exact result you will score: Comprehension, factual accuracy, calibrated trust, voluntary choice, reversibility and attitude change reported separately. - Confirm the partner is volunteering for a simulation and that the outcome has no real consequence. - Remove scarcity pressure, hidden incentives, personal vulnerabilities and false urgency from the scenario. ### Required or supplied materials - a fictional low-stakes proposal to a consented audience. - A claim–reason–evidence card and a fact-checkable source for each factual statement. - A listener card with interests, questions and an explicit right to stop or refuse. ## 1. Name the exact decision Write the reversible choice the listener is being asked to make, including “no change” as an available option. Why: A concrete decision makes pressure and alternatives visible. Success check: The request can be answered yes, no or choose an alternative without penalty. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Write the reversible choice the listener is being asked to make, including “no change” as an available option.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The request can be answered yes, no or choose an alternative without penalty.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 2. Ask for stated interests Ask the partner what matters for this choice and write their words without guessing motives. Confirm the summary with them. Why: Persuasion should respond to stated interests rather than invented vulnerabilities. Success check: The partner agrees that the written interests reflect what they said. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Ask the partner what matters for this choice and write their words without guessing motives. Confirm the summary with them.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The partner agrees that the written interests reflect what they said.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 3. Separate fact from value Mark each support point F for checkable fact, V for preference or value, and U for uncertainty. Remove any fact you cannot source. Why: Eloquent delivery can persuade even when accuracy is poor; labels keep evidence visible. Success check: Every support point has a label and every F point has a source. Accessible alternative: A supported, seated, reduced-range or slower version of “Mark each support point F for checkable fact, V for preference or value, and U for uncertainty. Remove any fact you cannot source.” is equivalent only when it keeps the same trained or measured target, declared configuration and success check: “Every support point has a label and every F point has a source.” If any of those change, record it as a related alternative rather than an equivalent repetition. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 4. Build claim–reason–evidence State one claim, give one reason tied to a stated interest and offer the relevant evidence. Keep the chain to three short sentences. Why: A visible reasoning chain is easier to check and challenge than a stream of confident assertions. Success check: The listener can point to the claim, reason and evidence separately. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “State one claim, give one reason tied to a stated interest and offer the relevant evidence. Keep the chain to three short sentences.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The listener can point to the claim, reason and evidence separately.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 5. Disclose costs and uncertainty Name one downside, one unknown and what evidence would change your recommendation. Why: Material limits allow calibrated trust instead of compliance based on confidence. Success check: The proposal contains a real downside, an uncertainty and a revision condition. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Name one downside, one unknown and what evidence would change your recommendation.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The proposal contains a real downside, an uncertainty and a revision condition.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 6. Invite refusal and questions Say that refusal has no penalty, pause, then ask what seems unsupported or misaligned. Do not rebut the first concern immediately. Why: Freedom to question or refuse is part of ethical influence. Success check: The partner can decline or challenge a claim without the speaker escalating pressure. Accessible alternative: Replace small or visual-only information with enlarged text, high-contrast display, spoken description or tactile/verbal cueing while preserving the same decision and success check. Keep usual aids for Persuasive communication; record each support inside the persuasive communication setup. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 7. Check understanding, not agreement Ask the partner to teach back the choice, main evidence, downside and opt-out. Score accuracy separately from whether they agree. Why: Agreement and comprehension are different outcomes. Success check: The record has separate comprehension, trust and voluntary-choice fields. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Ask the partner to teach back the choice, main evidence, downside and opt-out. Score accuracy separately from whether they agree.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The record has separate comprehension, trust and voluntary-choice fields.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## Reflection What changed? ________________________________________________________________________________ What remains difficult? ________________________________________________________________________________ What will I repeat, adapt, ask for help with, or stop? ________________________________________________________________________________ --- Completion of this worksheet demonstrates tutorial participation only. It does not establish capability, qualification, safety clearance, diagnosis, treatment or independent validation.