Almost every person in the course of a day sets in motion a complex train of reasoning of the same kind, though differing in degree, as that which a scientist goes through in tracing the causes of natural phenomena. "You go into a fruiterer's shop, wanting an apple; you take up one, and, on biting it, find it sour; you see that it is hard and green. You try another, and that, too, is hard and green and sour. The shopman offers you another, but, before biting it, you examine it and find that it is hard and green, and you say you will not have it, as it must be sour, like those that you have already tried. You have performed the operation of an induction. 6 a You found that in two experiences, hardness and greenness in apples went together with sourness small basis, but enough to make an induction from. You base upon this the general law, all hard and green apples are sour. Having got your general law, you say, when offered a hard, green apple, All hard and green apples are sour; this apple is hard and green, therefore this apple is sour.' This train of reasoning is what logicians call a syllogism,1 and has all its various parts and terms, its major premise,1 its minor premise,1 its conclusion. By the help of further reasoning, which if drawn out would be exhibited in two or three other syllogisms, you arrive at your final determination, I will not have this apple.' Later, when asked how you know all hard, green apples are sour, you say, 'I have tried them over and over, and always found them so.' If we were talking (in terms of) science instead of common sense, we should call that experimental verification." 2 The test of the conclusion reached is the same in all 2 Huxley, Darwiniana, 365. 1 Pages 89, 90. fields of inquiry. Here, however, the disciplined logician has the advantage. Here is the sharp line of distinction between the ordinary thinker and the scientific reasoner. Tests Are the Same. "The validity of the argument, when constructed," says Mr. Mill in his Logic, "depends on principles, and must be tried by tests which are the same for all descriptions of inquiries, whether the result be to give A an estate, or to enrich science with a new general truth. In the one case and in the other, the senses or testimony1 must decide on the individual facts; the rules of the syllogism (the joining together in thought of two propositions) will determine whether, those facts being supposed correct, the case really falls within the formulæ of the different inductions under which it has been successively brought; and finally, the legitimacy of the inductions themselves must be decided by other rules."2 Arguing is as universal as reasoning. Thoughtful men of whatever station or pursuit, are not content merely to find truth, or adopt opinions. They insist Arguing that this truth is the truth, and strive to inspire in others confidence in it as such: they strive to enforce upon others opinions which they believe correct. Beliefs founded on prejudice or on insufficient knowledge, are to be met and overcome in every department of human activity. Wherever there are dissenting opinions on things as they are supposed to be or ought to be, — right and wrong, true and false, just and unjust, expedient and inexpedient, men will debate. New fields are continually opening, and new investigations present fresh topics in old fields. Whether 2 Page 115. 1 Page 41. Moses wrote the Pentateuch; whether Homer and Tell were myths; whether the Silver Bill was good legislation; whether capital and labor can successfully combine in coöperative institutions, are no more serious questions for discussion with some classes of thinkers, than whether it is expedient to build a new school house, whether potatoes should be planted in hills or in drills, or what is the most effective insecticide, are to others. The formal parts of an argumentative discourse are usually, —(1) The Introduction, or Exordium; (2) The Body of Discourse, or Discussion, including the Proposition, the Partition, and the Arguments, -- Parts of Discourse. or Proofs, and Illustrations, all so arranged as to make clear and establish the truth of a proposition; and (3) The Conclusion, or Peroration. The introduction and peroration may often be dispensed with. The persons addressed may, by what has gone before or by attendant circumstances, be sufficiently prepared for the discussion; and the discussion may be so clear, forcible, direct and earnest, that it may be more effective without any formal recapitulation or other reënforcement of what has once been well said. CHAPTER II. THE INTRODUCTION. While a formal introduction is not always necessary, it is usually desirable. As the name implies, the introduction is preparatory to what follows: "the man, the subject and the occasion," need to be brought into relation. The hearer is to be put into Purpose and possession of the subject, the point of view and the treatment. Other things being equal, the more briefly, simply and naturally this can be done, the better. Care must be taken to avoid the mechanical and artificial and merely general, if the introduction is to serve its purpose. This purpose is threefold: to lead up to the subject by giving necessary information or removing objections; to arouse attention and stimulate interest; to secure good-will and confidence. The length and nature of the introduction will depend largely upon the breadth and character of the discourse, but will be modified by the relation of speaker to subject, and of both speaker and subject to audience; but it must be clear, direct and to the point. An abrupt beginning is by no means the worst; to attack a subject boldly, to seize upon it firmly, is better than to approach it doubtfully and from afar. Webster's The introductory paragraph of Webster's Speech in the Dartmouth College Case is a model of "Dartmouth brevity, conciseness and clearness in bringCollege." ing forward the general subject. It opens the way to the narrative which leads to his specific proposition: "The general question is, whether the acts of the legislature of New Hampshire of the 27th of June, and of the 18th and 19th of December, 1816, are valid and binding on the plaintiffs without their acceptance or assent." Acknowl ficulties. The subject as announced often seems dry, uninteresting, worn or commonplace, or a matter of only speculative interest. Special skill is needed in such cases to awaken attention and secure interest. The energy expended in the introduction to edging Difovercome the hearer's indifference or prejudice and arouse his sympathy, will save itself many times in the discussion; and sometimes this advantage may be gained by merely stating the difficulty with frankness, and in a familiar colloquial style, as Professor Huxley does in his Three Lectures on Evolution.1 Speakers often win attention from the start by proposing a subject as important, curious or otherwise interesting, and specially worthy of consideration. Sometimes if perfectly sure of their proofs Characterand illustrations, they stimulate curiosity by izing the stating their conclusion in a way to involve Subject. apparent contradiction, the hearer wondering how the strange, improbable or paradoxical will be explained. Frequently it is shown that the subject has been neglected, misunderstood or misrepresented. This intimation of something new by way of correction or explanation, may remove objections to what seems hackneyed, and subdue prejudices against the consideration of a forbidding subject. Such introductions, however, are liable to contain the same faults which 1 Page 224. |