A study continued a series of empirical investigations into the psychological criteria people use to determine whether or not to make particular arguments. Two hundred volunteers enrolled in a required public-speaking course (1) responded to several demographic questions, (2) described the persuasive choices they would make in the scenario provided, and (3) completed a self-monitoring measure of selection of argument strategies. In investigating the subjects' reasons for refusing to use a number of previously identified compliance gaining strategies, the study concluded that about 25% of the refusals were justified because the strategy simply would not work. Fifteen percent of refusals were made because respondents felt the strategies were negative or objectionable. Twenty-five percent of the rejections were due to person-centered concerns such as self-image or another's welfare. Finally, over one third of the strategies were rejected on the basis of being false or irrelevant. The results suggest that strategies should provide options to function in a given situation. (Tables of findings are included.) (DF)