How Every Extra Argument Raises Your Expertise and Their Guard

Why piling on arguments makes you look like an expert and a salesperson at the same time.

👋 Hi, it’s Rinaldo. Every week or two, I share actionable strategies to help you clarify your message, drive decisions, and grow your influence at work regardless of your role or title.

✨ If you’re looking for a speaker or workshop facilitator on strategic storytelling and getting buy-in for your next event or team session, reply to this email or fill out this form. I’d love to hear from you.

---

You have a proposal you believe in. The meeting is next Friday.

So you do what any thorough person does. You list every reason it makes sense. You imagine the objections and build a case for each one. Cost. Risk. Timeline. Precedents. The data from last quarter. By Wednesday night you have nine solid arguments and you finally feel ready.

Then you present, and the room goes flat in a way you did not expect. Someone says it feels like a lot. Someone else asks what the actual ask is. You walk out thinking they did not follow the logic. When in fact, they followed it just fine.

What the research found

A team at Stanford, Columbia and Toronto ran five experiments with more than 3,000 people, testing one thing: what happens when you increase the number of arguments in a message.

In one of them, 475 people read an email from a fictional community member about an upcoming ballot measure. Half got one argument in favor. Half got nine. Then they rated their attitude toward the measure, how expert they thought the sender was, and how badly the sender wanted to persuade them.

Both things went up.

More arguments made the sender look more like an expert. That helped.

More arguments also made the sender look like someone with something to sell. That hurt.

The two effects were close to the same size, so they cancelled each other out. Nine arguments moved the needle about as much as one did. The pattern held across other topics, from a new coffee brand to healthcare policy.

If you look at the economics of that for a second. You spend the extra hours. You build the extra slides. You carry the extra risk of presenting more. And you get nothing back for it.

Why it happens

There is a well established idea in persuasion research called persuasion knowledge. The moment someone detects that you are trying to persuade them, they stop evaluating your content and start evaluating you. What does this person want. Why are they pushing so hard. What are they leaving out.

Quantity is one of the loudest signals of intent there is. Nobody assembles nine reasons for something they feel neutral about.

A separate study on marketing claims found the same thing. Impressions of a product climbed with each added claim, peaked at three, and then skepticism started rising.

The interesting part is the control condition. When the source, the one persuading, had nothing to gain, more arguments kept helping. The suspicion was never really about the number of arguments. It was about the number coming from someone with a stake in the answer.

What matters to you

The researchers then made this useful instead of just interesting.

When they told participants to listen to experts, the nine-argument version won. When they told participants to be wary of people with an agenda, the short version won.

Same message. Same arguments. The number only mattered once the room decided which risk it cared about more.

That gives you the real question to ask yourself. Do not ask “how many arguments should I use”, instead ask “what is this room afraid of”.

There are two rooms you present in.

The scrutiny room. Technical review. Risk. Legal. Finance. Security. Architecture. Their job is rigor, and an incomplete case is the failure they are hired to catch and prevent. Thoroughness in these types of conversations reads as competence. Give them the full picture.

The decision room. Someone has to say yes, commit budget, and stake their name on it. Suspicion of agendas is highest here, because everyone in the room usually has one.

Most of us prepare the scrutiny version and then deliver it in the decision room.

The question underneath the question

Here is the part the research does not answer, and the part I think actually matters the most in work settings.

Why would you ever go for nine and not three arguments?

Because you did not know which three would land as the most important ones.

Every extra argument is insurance against not knowing what your audience genuinely cares about. You cover cost, risk, speed, quality and precedent because you cannot afford to miss the one thing that moves the CFO, and you are not sure what it is. The pile of arguments is not thoroughness and being detail-oriented. It is a hedge against lack of understanding about the people you work with.

When you know what each person values, you need less. That is the whole point of building a working model of your stakeholders, and it is why the same proposal needs different arguments for the finance lead and the engineering lead.

There is a second reason the pile exists, and it is structural.

You stack nine arguments because the meeting is your only shot. Every objection arrives at once, from people you have not spoken to, in a room where you have twenty minutes and a clock. Of course you over-prepare. Anyone would.

That is not a presentation problem. You have simply forgotten to pre-sell your arguments!

Every objection you answer in advance is an argument you do not have to make in public. Pre-selling does not just save you slides, it lowers the perceived intent of the whole presentation, because you are no longer the person arguing. You are the person reporting what the group already worked out. At that point, what is left in the room is not persuasion. It is confirmation.

Good luck and be patient with yourself.

-Rinaldo

---

Research referenced:

• Bergman, A., Hussein, M. A., Catapano, R., & Tormala, Z. L. (2025). Fifteen Reasons You Should Read This Paper: How Providing Many Arguments Increases Perceptions of Both Expertise and Persuasive Intent. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

• Shu, S. B., & Carlson, K. A. (2014). When Three Charms but Four Alarms: Identifying the Optimal Number of Claims in Persuasion Settings. Journal of Marketing, 78(1), 127-139.

• Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31.

---

P.S. - Here is how I can help you move your ideas forward:

1. Company Workshops, Keynotes & Leadership Training:

Help your team communicate with clarity, present with confidence, and turn insights into action. Whether it’s a keynote, offsite, or manager training, I’ll equip your team with storytelling tools they can use immediately.

-> Share your details here.

2. Join the Beta: Live Cohort Course (Limited Spots)

I am launching a hands-on program to help leaders and ICs master strategic storytelling. Specifically, how to guide stakeholders through strategic questions instead of presenting at them. So your ideas don’t just get heard, they get acted on and you get confident buy-in without defending yourself or needing a louder voice. Think: frameworks, live feedback, and real transformation in how you show up.

-> This is the beta round, so spots are limited, discounted, and the experience will be highly personalized. Leave your info here if you’re interested and I’ll send details soon.