# Rhetoric Principles for Presentations

> Shared reference for `/beamer-deck`, `/quarto-deck`, and `/quarto-course`. Drawn from Scott Cunningham's "The Rhetoric of Decks" essay.
> Full source: `resources/academics/scott-cunningham/MixtapeTools/presentations/rhetoric_of_decks.md`

## The Three Laws

| Law | Principle |
|-----|-----------|
| **Beauty Is Function** | Every element earns its presence. Decoration without function is noise. A slide with three words on a blank background can be the most beautiful. |
| **Cognitive Load Is the Enemy** | Audience has limited working memory. Too many points = zero points retained. One idea per slide — not a guideline, a law. |
| **The Slide Serves the Spoken Word** | Slides provide focal points, memory hooks, evidence, structural markers. If slides work without speaking, you've written a document, not a presentation. |

## MB/MC Equivalence

Optimal rhetoric equalises the marginal-benefit-to-marginal-cost ratio across all slides. For each slide ask: "If I added one more element, would benefit justify cognitive cost? If I removed one, would I lose more than I'd gain in clarity?" When every slide answers "I'm at the margin," you're optimised.

- **Overloaded slides** (MB/MC too low): text running to footer, competing ideas, charts with too many series.
- **Underloaded slides** (MB/MC too high): single word that could support a sentence, wasted attention.
- **Rhythm**: vary dense and light slides deliberately.

## Aristotelian Triad

| Mode | Role in decks | Danger if absent |
|------|---------------|------------------|
| **Ethos** (credibility) | Process diagrams, acknowledged limitations, Devil's Advocate slides | Audience won't trust you |
| **Pathos** (emotion) | Open with a recognised problem, connect data to human impact | Audience won't care |
| **Logos** (logic) | Data viz revealing patterns, comparison tables, problem→solution flow | Audience won't follow |

## Narrative Arc (Three Acts)

1. **Act I — Problem (Tension):** Establish status quo, introduce disruption, make audience feel the problem.
2. **Act II — Investigation (Development):** Show what you tried, present what you learned, build the logical case.
3. **Act III — Resolution (Release):** Deliver insight, show implications, call to action.

## Pyramid Principle

Lead with the conclusion, then support it. Humans want the punchline first, then the reasoning.

- **Opening slide**: Provocative question, surprising statistic, bold claim. Never "Today I'm going to talk about..."
- **Closing slide**: Single memorable takeaway or return to opening, resolved. Never "Questions?" or "Thank you."

## The Devil's Advocate

Before presenting your argument, present its strongest critique. Show anticipated objections, weaknesses you acknowledge, mitigations you've developed. Format: "A skeptic would say..." → your response.

## Context-Specific Guidance

| Audience | Ethos/Pathos/Logos | Key adjustments |
|----------|-------------------|-----------------|
| **Academic seminar** | 20% / 35% / 45% | Lead with the puzzle, not the literature. Identification strategy early. One coefficient at a time. Acknowledge limitations before Q&A. |
| **Conference talk** | 25% / 35% / 40% | Emphasise identification strategy and key results. Tight narrative — no tangents. |
| **Teaching lecture** | 20% / 30% / 50% | Brevity < clarity. Repetition is allowed. Show reasoning, not just conclusions. Pause points for questions. |
| **Working deck** | 30% / 10% / 60% | Document choices (why A over B?). Preserve uncertainty. Show the math. Prioritise rigor over polish. |
