persona to establish a proposition or refute it. He is not masked. His purpose is not concealed. Direct. His meaning is unequivocal. His process is constructive. The great body of argumentation is of this class, and need not be further discussed as such.1 Indirect. Indirect arguments are used most frequently in refutation.2 They aim at building up one thing by overthrowing another. They usually show the truth of a proposition by exhibiting in some way the inconsistency, absurdity or unreasonableness of an opposite conclusion. They prove truth by disproving error. Of the numerous kinds of indirect arguments, the reductio ad absurdum is one of the most common. There are several methods of "reducing to the absurd," one of which is familiar to students of geometry: "Two perpendiculars to the same straight line are parallel. "Let the lines A B and C D be perpendicular to A C. "To prove A B and C D parallel. “If A B and C D are not parellel, they will meet in some point if sufficiently produced. "We should then have two perpendiculars from the same point to A C, which is impossible. "[From a given point without a straight line but one perpendicular can be drawn to the line.] "Therefore, A B and C D cannot meet and are parallel." 1 See Antecedent Probability, Example and Analogy, and Sign, pages 124, 146, 158, 173. 2 Page 206. Here the conclusions are reduced to two, one of which is proved absurd, thus leaving the other to stand as established. The absurdity of the principle, "Of two evils choose the lesser," is shown by applying the same kind of reasoning by which the principle is supported in one case, to a different case in which the conclusion reached is manifestly absurd :— Sherman. “Mr. Sherman is opposed to inflation, and yet reported this bill authorizing the purchase of 4,500,000 ounces of silver every month; how does he reconcile his action with his professions? By showing that a large majority of the Senate favored free coinage, that it was feared that the House might yield and agree to it, that if a bill for free coinage should have passed both houses, Harrison might have signed it, and that free coinage was a worse evil than the silver-purchase scheme. Consequently, Mr. Sherman did what he could to pass the latter. "How can a man with any real convictions on the subject advocate and father a bill which he holds to be radically vicious, because something worse is proposed by some one else? On this principle the candid patriot may advocate anything he pleases, provided he announces that he is opposed to it. Suppose the majority of the House are in favor of an act for the immediate murder of all adult Chinamen or Indians, while the Senate is in favor of killing all the children as well. The first is obviously the lesser evil; but Mr. Sherman would hardly like to report it from a conference committee and favor its adoption. On these principles we might be called upon to listen to arguments in favor of an act legalizing burglary as a lesser evil than an act permitting murder, or of an act authorizing larceny as preferable on the whole to burglary. The matter is clear enough where acts universally recognized as wicked are concerned." If a conclusion is true the propositions which support 1 The Nation. it must also be true. The argument which like the last example, may be met by the reductio ad absurdum, proves too much. It proves its own conclu Proving too Much. sion and one or more others which are absurd. It thus suggests in itself the means of its own overthrow; for proving the absurdity of the general proposition upon which the conclusion rests, destroys the conclusion. The Educational Review thus answers the statement, "English literature cannot be taught": 6 "Having in mind the confusion between teaching and examination which has befogged the whole discussion of the question in England, Mr. E. A. Freeman, the historian, declared against any university teaching of English literature. Mr. Collins quotes Mr. Freeman as writing, there are many things fit for a man's personal study which are not fit for university examinations. One of these is literature.' That literature cultivates the taste, educates the sympathies, enlarges the mind,' Mr. Freeman makes no attempt to deny; only, we cannot examine in tastes and sympathies,' is his reply. Now, if this proves anything, it proves too much. It is an argument, not against teaching English literature only, but against teaching Latin literature and Greek literature. But Mr. Freeman and those who hold with him have not yet suggested that the universities of Oxford and Cambridge should give up the teaching of Greek literature. "There is indeed a difference between the teaching of English literature and the teaching of Greek literature. The texts of the great Greek authors, like the texts of the great English authors, may serve for grammatical instruction and for mere linguistic drill; or they may, the ancient as well as the modern, be used to cultivate the taste, educate the sympathy and enlarge the mind.” Thrown into syllogistic1 form this would be: 1 Page 89. 1. Whatever has to do with tastes and sympathies cannot be examined upon : English literature has to do with tastes and sympathies; 2. Whatever cannot be examined upon, cannot be taught: English literature cannot be examined upon; English literature cannot be taught. But what is said of English literature may be said of Greek, Roman, or any other kind of literature, or indeed of any form of art; and to say that no art can be taught, is manifestly absurd. Other forms of indirect argument depend for their force on the principle of alternative. A subject may so present itself that two or more conclusions are possible, only one of which is just. If these Alternative. conclusions can be shown definitely to be the Principle of only ones, the falseness of all but one may be proved, and the truth of this be left to assert itself. Hepburn uses the following example where there are two alternatives 1: 6 "If the thesis is, Man is a free agent,' then the antithesis is, Man is not a free agent.' To prove the thesis directly, we should have to lay down positive arguments; as, the consciousness of the power of contrary choice, the consciousness of responsibility. The indirect proof would take some such form as this: Man is either free or he is not free. Let us assume that he is not free. If he is not free, he cannot, in cases of conflicting motives, choose, but must blindly follow one of the impulses. But we know from consciousness that he can decide between conflicting motives; therefore it is false that he is not free. He must, therefore, be free.'" 2 In his Speech on Conciliation Burke affords a good example of indirect arguments where there are four 2 English Composition, 191. 1 See also Page 83. alternatives, that is, four possibilities. He Three Alter- dismisses one as already rejected, and then overthrows two as a necessary clearing of natives. the ground to establish the last: "But, Sir, in wishing to put an end to pernicious experiments, I do not mean to preclude the fullest inquiry. Far from it. Far from deciding on a sudden or partial view, I would patiently go round and round the subject, and survey it minutely in every possible aspect. Sir, if I were capable of engaging you to an equal attention, I would state that, as far as I am capable of discerning, there are but three ways of proceeding relative to this stubborn spirit which prevails in your Colonies, and disturbs your government. These are, to change that spirit, as inconvenient, by removing the causes; to prosecute it as criminal; or to comply with it as necessary. I would not be guilty of an imperfect enumeration; I can think of but these three. Another has indeed been started, — that of giving up the Colonies; but it met so slight a reception that I do not think myself obliged to dwell a great while upon it. It is nothing but a little sally of anger, like the frowardness of peevish children, who, when they cannot get all they would have, are resolved to take nothing."1 Burke's treatment is broad, comprehensive and effective. He discusses thoroughly, and impartially the first two alternatives, showing them impractical or impossible: or "If then, the removal of the causes of this spirit of American liberty be for the greater part, or rather entirely, impracticable; if the ideas of criminal process be inapplicable, if applicable, are in the highest degree inexpedient; what way yet remains? No way is open but the third and last, comply with the American spirit as necessary; or, please, to submit to it as a necessary evil.” 2 Then by direct argument he strengthens the conclu - to if you |