Transcript 3.3 – Develop Deductive
Welcome back. Today I'm looking forward to bringing to you some ideas about how we develop our storyline. In the last episode, I talked to you about how to build a gripping structure. And today I'd like to focus on the other structure we use when building out the supporting part of our story, where we organizing the ideas that support our so what And so today, I'm looking forward to explaining to you three things about deductive storylines, firstly, that they offer a powerful way to structure compelling recommendations and only recommendations. Secondly, if there will be effective, there must pass for key structural tests. And then finally, the good news is we've got four patterns to help you use them and make it so much easier for you to build a powerful deductive storyline.
So firstly, let me talk to you a bit about how deductive structures offer a powerful way to structure a compelling recommendation. As I mentioned in the last video, groupings have many purposes, they can be used to deliver action plans, research findings, updates, pictures, proposals, any number of things where you need to have a list of ideas that belongs together and is messy data structures are a little more complex. And they are used only for recommendations. The first two points there supporting the sowhat build a compelling case for action. And we deliver the final point, the third point, and there's only three, when we're ready to explain to our audience, how to implement the recommendation that we had just persuaded them to take. So in illustrating how deductive structures allow for both persuasion and action, I've got an example here for you. So if you look at the so what there despite a strong start for Project X, intensifying competition requires us to speed up execution for future phrases. Now the first two points there, firstly, the statement and then secondly, the comment all about persuasion.
If you look at the first one, Project X is started well, meeting all milestones for phase one, there's some good news that the audience doesn't know. However, second point, intensifying competition requires us to speed up execution for phase two onwards. So there we've got an opportunity to have two high level points that have supporting arguments underneath that will persuade your audience if done well will persuade your audience that absolutely obviously, they need to speed up execution. And then they're ready to hear about your action plan your proposed action plan. So that's a great example of what looks like a very simple storyline mapped out deductively to persuade your audience that this recommendation is not only the right one, but the action plan for implementing it is right also. So once you understand that difference between grouping and deductive storylines, it's helpful to understand the key structural tests that we use for assessing whether our storyline is robust or not when we're using a deductive style.
Now you'll be familiar with a 10 point test by now. And questions six to eight are relevant for deductive structures specifically, as they are for groupings. Now you look there question six is the support for the so what logically sound as either a grouping or deductive structure? Secondly, number seven, there are the second and third level points logically sound grouping audit active, and is the storyline may see categorized well and using enough evidence at every level. So those three questions are the ones that we're focusing on today. And we're unpacking them a bit more deeply, just like we did for groupings, to illustrate the four structural tests that will enable you to pass particularly questions six, and seven. So the four questions that we need to look at here Firstly, number one as a whole, the ideas need to lead to one and only one recommendation. And then next, we look at the ideas individually and the role they play within the structure. So firstly, each idea must do their job as a statement or comment or recommendation.
So the role of each of those three points at the top of your deductive structure is different to each other. Within a grouping structure, they're very much similar. Then we get to the third point there. Each idea must paired a grouping structure that passes the Macey test. And then finally, every point must add genuine value to the story. So let's now look at the first test here looking at all of the ideas together and how they must lead to one and only one recommendation. So firstly, let me talk about the difference between classic logic and storyline in logic, we're using deduction, but we're using it in a very particular way when we're talking about the top line of our storyline. So if we look at this example here, for example, their statement there says that the Socratic method recommends teaching by asking questions. However, in today's world, students thrive on a variety of teaching techniques. Therefore, we must master a variety of teaching strategies, that leads us towards an action. So all of our storylines, when we're using deductive structures at the top level of our storyline must lead towards an action. What we don't want to be doing is using classic logic, which is useful for some supporting structures, particularly under a grouping structure that leads towards suggesting that something is true. It's not leading towards an action. So the classic Socrates example works here.
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Now, if you believe those two things are true. Therefore, it's obvious that Socrates is mortal. That's using classic logic, it's leading to prove a point very useful, much lower down in your story, not at the top line of your deductive story, when we say these ideas in a deductive structure must lead to one and only one recommendation, I'd like to illustrate again with some examples about what I mean there. So I've got two flawed examples here. So firstly, competitors always do X to succeed, however, you don't do X, therefore, you must start doing x. Now that, to me, follows the logic that a mother in Sydney might use, which is saying, okay, it just because your friends jump off the bridge, does that mean you would also just because your competitors are doing it doesn't mean you should. And in fact, if they aren't, might mean you shouldn't, if you want to compete effectively.
Now look at the second one here, sales have fallen by 12%. This quarter due to the success of new codes intensive marketing. However, we've identified the cause of the fall in sales, therefore hire a new sales team. Now the connections between those ideas are not tight, it does not lead to one single recommendation, which is what a functioning compelling deductive structure must do. Now let's look at some other examples which are much more compelling. So this first one here, if the to the act defines three criteria that have to be met. To apply for an exemption, you meet all three criteria, therefore, you can apply for an exemption. And then the final example, there, we investigated four potential options for solving problem x. However, all these only option B will solve problem x effectively, therefore, we need to implement option B. Now those two last examples are compelling, because the structure follows beautifully. Now, of course, you've got to be able to back those up with evidence. Now let's get into that a little bit more in a little bit more depth, because each for that to work, each one of these elements must do their job as a statement, or comment or recommendation.
Now, when we look at visually add our storyline here, we can see that we have three different points. And you can see the way we're drawing it, there's a flow that leads towards that recommendation at the end. So that first point needs to be an irrefutable statement about the situation that is news to your audience. So it's a broad statement that needs explanation to be compelling. And then the next point there is a comment. And that's a sentence that comments specifically on at least one part of the statement, typically just one, occasionally more than one part of the statement. And then we lead on to the recommendation. And that's the single one and only recommendation that follows naturally from the previous two points. Now in the example that I've got on the screen here, you can see I've color coded those links for you. So the act defines three criteria. And then in the in the comment, you can see I'm referencing, again, three criteria. And it's three criteria that have to be met.
Your comment says you meet all three, therefore, you can apply that flows logically. Now the next thing to know is that each item within that directory structure must appear in a grouping structure. That of course, passes the mec test. So again, to visualize this, I've taken the so one of the page which of course is there with an introduction, a CT q leading into it. I've just taken that off because we're focusing on the top line of the deductive structures today. So we have the first two points, they're all about persuasion, the final one about action, which is why when you look at the top line and then underneath you've got different kinds of supports. So underneath that statement, that irrefutable statement about the situation, you've got reasoning evidence described as reasons why that point is true. And that's a separate grouping structure that's connected at the very top in the top line by the deduction, that then in the middle there, we have our comment that again, overarching reasoning, there's no actions that sits underneath just reasons to support that point.
And then finally, we lead to what the action we've done our persuasion. So now that your audience has bought into your argument, then they're ready to hear, okay, how do we implement this, and then you say, okay, therefore, we need to do this to implement the recommendation. And then underneath, we're going to have a set of actions. So two sets of reasons, combined logically at the top, and then leading to one and only one recommendation supported by a set of actions underneath. Now, of course, each of those three grouped sections need to pass them a C test, the ideas need to be mutually exclusive, and collectively exhaustive. And finally, this one, this point about adding genuine value to the story, this is about just reminding ourselves that we don't want our hobbyhorses in our communication. We don't add things in unless we can describe why they actually support our case.
Now, let me dig in here to explain this. By way of example, here we have a story based on the Apollo 13. shuttle. And we have so what that says we need to immediately run the numbers to check whether existing equipment on the shuttle can be used to get the astronauts back home safely. Now we've got three high level points here. Firstly, Houston, we have an urgent problem with the shuttle. However, other equipment onboard may compensate for the damage and keep the astronauts safe. Therefore, let's check the which equipment will help get our people home. So you can see that those supporting points there in the blue boxes support those ideas in the yellow sitting above. Now I'm being a little bit of two's here with my example to illustrate what could go wrong. It's very hard to pick an example that would resonate with everybody, regardless of your background to illustrate my point, but just just to sort of drive it home here. Underneath this Houston section, the engines damaged that belongs the crews out of teabags is such a small, silly example to illustrate my point. What I really want to make sure you do here is Be very, very careful that the ideas do pass them a C test, that they're well structured, that there are no gaps, no overlaps in the logic, and no things that are equivalent of teabags that are so silly so little, that they really don't make a material impact on your points above. Now, finally, I hope you'll be pleased to know we have got four patterns here for you. When we started working with storylines years ago, we built them from first principles.
We built them in PowerPoint or in Word. We didn't use storyline pictures, and we didn't use patterns either. What Jared and I found in working with storylines for several decades each is that there are common patterns, common themes. And I want to share with you today, the four that we find most helpful when working with deductive storylines. So the first example here is close the gap. Now close the gaps are very powerful one to use for improvement recommendations, also where we need to help our audience understand the foundations for what success would look like perhaps they don't come from your sector, perhaps they don't have the technical background that you have, or perhaps just the world's moved on since they had a good understanding of the situation that you're talking about. Houston we have a problem I've used the classic Houston story just before to illustrate that one. Houston we face a problem here is the cause therefore fix the cause. And then thirdly, there To be or not to be, which is a wonderful one where we need to articulate our work in relation to some options that we've evaluated.
Again, it depends what your audience is looking for from you. many stories could be told any one of these three ways and I'd encourage you, actually when you get to a place of starting to work out what your storyline structure looks like to go to a whiteboard or to the PowerPoint, and just sketch out really roughly your story using all three of those examples and just see which one feels the best which one you think is going to resonate the best. And that will push your thinking to help you really work out how to tell the story. It also help you work out which structure is going to be the most compelling structure for you to use. And then finally, watch out. This is a fabulous one for updates where the seat
Tuition has changed, where you can genuinely say, We've made great progress. However, this and changes emerging, there's some risks ahead. Therefore, let's change our direction, so that we can actually address those emerging risks. So they're not always risks with this structure, there could be opportunities, but certainly something's changed that we want to deal with. So there we have three things to think about. When crafting deductive storylines, making sure our detective storyline offers a powerful way to structure compelling recommendations. Secondly, making sure it's passes for key structural tests, so it is actually compelling. And then finally, having a look at patterns and understanding that our deductive structures can form four very powerful patterns. Thanks so much for coming with me on this journey when we're talking about deductive storylines. I look forward to talking to you again soon. Bye for now.