XI Argument
+170. Difference between Argument and Exposition.+—Argument differs from exposition in its purpose. By exposition we endeavor to make clear the meaning of a proposition; by argument we attempt to prove its truth. If a person does not understand what we mean, we explain; if, after he does understand, he does not believe, we argue.
Often a simple explanation is sufficient to convince. As soon as the reader understands the real meaning of a proposition, he accepts our view of the case. A heated discussion may end with the statement, “Oh, if that is what you mean, I agree with you.” In Section 70, we have learned that the first step in argument is explanation, by which we make clear the meaning of the proposition the truth of which we wish to establish. This explanation may include both the expounding of the terms in the proposition and the explanation of the proposition as a whole.
There is another difference between exposition and argument. We cannot argue about single terms, though we may explain them. We may explain what is meant by the term elective studies, or civil service; but an argument requires a proposition such as, Pupils should be allowed to choose their own studies, or, Civil Service should be established. Even with such a topic as Expansion or Restricted Immigration, which seems to be a subject of argument, there is really an implied proposition under discussion; as, The United States should acquire control of territory outside of its present boundaries; or, It should be the policy of our government to restrict immigration. We may explain the meaning of single terms or of propositions, but in order to argue, we must have a proposition either expressed or implied.
+171. Proposition of Fact and Proposition of Theory.+—Some propositions state facts and some propositions state theories. Every argument therefore aims either to prove the occurrence of a fact or the truth of a theory. The first would attempt to show the actual or probable truth of a specific proposition; for example:—
Nero was guilty of burning Rome.
Joan of Arc was burned at the stake.
Barbara Frietchie actually existed.
Sheridan never made the ride from Winchester.
Homer was born at Chios.
The second would try to establish the probable truth of a general theory; for example:—
A college education is a profitable investment.
Light is caused by a wave motion of ether.
+172. Statement of the Proposition.+—The subject about which we argue may be stated in any one of the three forms discussed in Section 74; that is, as a declarative sentence, a resolution, or a question. The statement does not necessarily appear first in the argument, but it must be clearly formulated in the mind of the writer before he attempts to argue. Before trying to convince others he must know exactly what he himself believes, and the attempt to state his belief in the form of a proposition will assist in making his own thought clear and definite.
If we are going to argue concerning elective studies, we should first of all be sure that we understand the meaning of the term ourselves. Then we must consider carefully what we believe about it, and state our proposition so that it shall express exactly this belief. On first thought we may believe the proposition that pupils should be allowed to choose their own studies. But is this proposition true of pupils in the grades as well as in the high schools? Or is it true only of the upper classes in the high school or only of college students? Can you state this proposition so that it will express your own belief on the subject?
Exercises
A. Use the following terms in expressed propositions:—
1. Immigration. 2. Elevated railways. 3. American history. 4. Military training. 5. Single session. 6. Athletics.
B. Explain the following propositions:—
1. The United States should adopt a free-trade policy. 2. Is vivisection justifiable? 3. The author has greater influence than the orator. 4. The civil service system should be abolished. 5. The best is always cheapest.
C. Can you restate the following propositions so that the meaning of each will be made more definite?
1. Athletics should be abolished. (Should all athletic exercises be
abolished?)
2. Latin is better than algebra. (Better for what purpose? Better for
whom?)
3. Training in domestic arts and sciences should be provided for high school pupils. (Define domestic arts and sciences. Should they be taught to all high school pupils?)
4. Punctuality is more important than efficiency.
5. The commercial course is better than the classical course.
6. A city should control the transportation facilities within its limits.
+Theme XCVI.+—Write out an argument favoring one of the propositions as restated in Exercise C above.
(Before writing, make a brief as indicated in Section 77. Consider the arrangement of your argument.)
+173. Clear Thinking Essential to Argument.+—Having clearly in mind the proposition which we wish to prove, we next proceed to give arguments in its support. The very fact that we argue at all assumes that there are two sides to the question. If we hope to have another accept our view we must present good reasons. We cannot convince another that a proposition is true unless we can tell him why it is true; and certainly we cannot tell him why until we know definitely our own reasons for believing the statement. In order to present a good argument we must be clear logical thinkers ourselves; that is, we must be able to state definite reasons for our beliefs and to draw the correct conclusions.
+174. Inductive Reasoning.+—One of the best preparations for trying to convince others is for us to consider carefully our own reasons for believing as we do. Minds act in a similar manner, and what leads you and me to believe certain truths will be likely to cause others to believe them also. A brief consideration of how our belief in the truth of a proposition has been established will indicate the way in which we should present our material in order to cause others to believe the same proposition. If you ask yourself the question, What leads me to believe as I do? the answer will undoubtedly be effective in convincing others.
Are the following propositions true or false? Why do you believe or refuse to believe each?
1. Maple trees shed their leaves in winter.
2. Dogs bark.
3. Kettles are made of iron.
4. Grasshoppers jump.
5. Giraffes have long necks.
6. Raccoons sleep in the daytime.
7. The sun will rise to-morrow.
8. Examinations are not fair tests of a pupil’s knowledge.
9. Honest people are respected.
10. Water freezes at 32° Fahrenheit.
11. Boys get higher standings in mathematics than girls do.
It is at once evident that we believe a proposition such as one of these, because we have known of many examples. If we reject any of the propositions it is because we know of exceptions (we have seen kettles not made of iron), or because we do not know of instances (we may never have seen a raccoon, and so not know what he does in the daytime). The greater the number of cases which have occurred without presenting an exception, the stronger our belief in the truth of the proposition (we expect the sun to rise because it has never failed).
The process by which, from many individual cases, we establish the truth of a proposition is called +inductive reasoning+.
+175. Establishing a General Theory.+—A general theory is established by showing that for all known particular cases it will offer an acceptable explanation. By investigation or experiment we note that a certain fact is true in one particular instance, and, after a large number of individual cases have been noted, and the same fact found to be true in each, we assume that such is true of all like cases, and a general law is established. This is the natural scientific method and is constantly being made use of in pursuing scientific studies. By experiment, it was found that one particular kind of acid turned blue litmus red. This, of course, was not sufficient proof to establish a general law, but when, upon further investigation, it was found to be true of all known acids, scientists felt justified in stating the general law that acids turn blue litmus red.
In establishing a new theory in science it is necessary to bring forward many facts which seem to establish it, and the argument will consist in pointing out these facts. Frequently the general principle is assumed to be true, and the argument then consists in showing that it will apply to and account for all the facts of a given kind. Theories which have been for a time believed have, as the world progressed in learning, been found unable to account for all of a given class of conditions. They have been replaced, therefore, by other theories, just as the Copernican theory of astronomy has displaced the Ptolemaic theory.
Our belief may be based upon the absence of facts proving the contrary as well as upon the presence of facts proving the proposition. If A has never told an untruth, that fact is an argument in favor of his truthfulness on the present occasion. A man who has never been dishonest may point to this as an argument in favor of placing him in a position of trust. Often the strongest evidence that we can offer in favor of a proposition is the absence of any fact that would support the negative conclusion.
The point of the whole matter is that from the observation of a large number of cases, we may establish the probable truth of a proposition, but emphasis needs to be laid upon the probability. We cannot be sure. Not all crows are black, though you may never have seen a white one. The sun may not rise to-morrow, though it has never failed up to this time. Still it is by this observation of many individual cases that the truth of the propositions that men do believe has been established. We realize that our inductions are often imperfect, but the general truths so established will be found to underlie every process of reasoning, and will be either directly or indirectly the basis upon which we build up all argument.
We may then redefine inductive reasoning as the process by which from many individual cases we establish the probable truth of a general proposition.
Exercises
Notice in the following selections that the truth of the conclusion is shown by giving particular examples:—
1. It is curious enough that we always remember people by their worst points, and still more curious that we always suppose that we ourselves are remembered by our best. I once knew a hunchback who had a well-shaped hand, and was continually showing it. He never believed that anybody noticed his hump, but lived and died in the conviction that the whole town spoke of him no otherwise than as the man with the beautiful hand, whereas, in fact, they only looked at his hump, and never so much as noticed whether he had a hand at all. This young lady, so pretty and so clever, is simply the girl who had that awkward history with So-and-so; that man, who has some of the very greatest qualities, is nothing more than the one who behaved so badly on such an occasion. It is a terrible thing to think that we are all always at watch one upon the other, to catch the false step in order that we may have the grateful satisfaction of holding our neighbor for one who cannot walk straight. No regard is paid to the better qualities and acts, however numerous; all the attention is fixed upon the worst, however slight. If St. Peter were alive he would be known as the man who denied his Master; St. Paul would be the man who stoned Stephen; and St. Thomas would never be mentioned in any decent society without allusions to that unfortunate request for further evidence. Probably this may be the reason why we all have so much greater a contempt for and distrust of each other than would be warranted by a correct balance between the good and the evil that are in each.
—Thomas Gibson Bowles: Flotsam and Jetsam.
2. In the first place, 227 withered leaves of various kinds, mostly of English plants, were pulled out of worm burrows in several places. Of these, 181 had been drawn into the burrows by or near their tips, so that the footstalk projected nearly upright from the mouth of the burrow; 20 had been drawn in by their bases, and in this case the tips projected from the burrows; and 26 had been seized near the middle, so that these had been drawn in transversely and were much crumpled. Therefore 80 per cent (always using the nearest whole number) had been drawn in by the tip, 9 per cent by the base or footstalk, and 11 per cent transversely or by the middle. This alone is almost sufficient to show that chance does not determine the manner in which leaves are dragged into the burrows.
—Darwin: Vegetable Mold and Earthworms.
3. The catastrophe of every play is caused always by the folly or fault of a man; the redemption, if there be any, is by the wisdom and virtue of a woman, and, failing that, there is none. The catastrophe of King Lear is owing to his own want of judgment, his impatient vanity, his misunderstanding of his children; the virtue of his one true daughter would have saved him from all the injuries of the others, unless he had cast her away from him; as it is, she all but saves him. Of Othello, I need not trace the tale; nor the one weakness of his so mighty love; nor the inferiority of his perceptive intellect to that even of the second woman character in the play, the Emilia who dies in wild testimony against his error:—
“Oh, murderous coxcomb! what should such a fool
Do with so good a wife?”
In Romeo and Juliet, the wise and brave stratagem of the wife is brought to ruinous issue by the reckless impatience of her husband. In The Winter’s Tale, and in Cymbeline, the happiness and existence of two princely households, lost through long years, and imperiled to the death by the folly and obstinacy of the husbands, are redeemed at last by the queenly patience and wisdom of the wives. In Measure for Measure, the foul injustice of the judge, and the foul cowardice of the brother, are opposed to the victorious truth and adamantine purity of a woman. In Coriolanus, the mother’s counsel, acted upon in time, would have saved her son from all evil; his momentary forgetfulness of it is his ruin; her prayer, at last, granted, saves him—not, indeed, from death, but from the curse of living as the destroyer of his country.
—Ruskin: Sesame and Lilies.
4.
_Bas. _So may the outward shows be least themselves; The world is still deceived with ornament.
In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt But, being season’d with a gracious voice, Obscures the show of evil? In religion, What damned error, but some sober brow Will bless it and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament?
There is no vice so simple but assumes Some mark of virtue on his outward parts:
How many cowards, whose hearts are all as false As stairs of sand, wear yet upon their chins The beards of Hercules and frowning Mars, Who, inward search’d, have livers white as milk; And these assume but valor’s excrement To render them redoubted! Look on beauty, And you shall see ’tis purchased by the weight; Which therein works a miracle in nature, Making them lightest that wear most of it:
So are those crisped snaky golden locks Which make such wanton gambols with the wind, Upon supposed fairness, often known To be the dowry of a second head, The skull that bred them in the sepulcher.
Thus ornament is but the guiled shore To a most dangerous sea; the beauteous scarf Veiling an Indian beauty; in a word, The seeming truth which cunning times put on To entrap the wisest. Therefore, thou gaudy gold, Hard food for Midas, I will none of thee; Nor none of thee, thou pale and common drudge ’Tween man and man: but thou, though meager lead, Which rather threatenest than dost promise aught, Thy paleness moves me more than eloquence; And here choose I: joy be the consequence!
—Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice.
+Theme XCVII.+—Write a paragraph proving the truth of one of the following statements:—
1. It is a distinct advantage to a large town to be connected with the smaller towns by electric car lines.
2. Vertical penmanship should be taught in all elementary schools.
3. Examinations develop dishonesty.
4. Novel reading is a waste of time.
5. Tramps ought not to be fed.
(Make a brief. Consider the arrangement of your arguments. Read Section 72.)
+176. Errors of Induction.+—A common error is that of too hasty generalization. We conclude that something is always so because it happened to be so in the few cases that have come under our observation. A broader experience frequently shows that the hastily made generalization will not hold.
Some people are led to lose faith in all humanity because one or two of their acquaintances have shown themselves unworthy of their trust. Others are ready to pronounce a merchant dishonest because some article purchased at his store has not proved to be so good as it was expected to be. There are those who are superstitious concerning the wearing of opals, claiming that these jewels bring the wearer ill luck, because they have heard of some instances where misfortune seemed to follow the wearing of that particular stone. What may seem to be causes and effects at first may, upon further investigation or inquiry, prove to be merely chance coincidences. In your work in argument, whether for the class room or outside, be careful about this point. Remember that your induction will be weak or even worthless if you draw conclusions from too few examples.
Often one example seems sufficient to cause belief. We might believe that all giraffes have long necks, even though we had seen but one; but such a belief would exist because, by many examples of other animals, we have learned that a single specimen will fairly represent all other specimens of the same class. On the other hand, if this one giraffe should possess one brown eye and one white eye, we should not expect all other giraffes to have such eyes, for our observation of many hundreds of animals teaches us that the eyes of an animal are usually alike in color. In order to establish a true generalization, the essential characteristics must be selected, and these cannot be determined by rule, but rather by common sense.
+177. Deductive Reasoning.+—When once a general principle has been established, we may demonstrate the truth of a specific proposition by showing that the general principle applies to it. We see a gold ring and say, “This ring is valuable,” because we believe the general proposition, “All articles made of gold are valuable.” Expressed in full, the process of reasoning would be—
A. All articles made of gold are valuable. B. This ring is made of gold. C. Therefore this ring is valuable.
A series of statements such as the above is called a syllogism. It consists of a major premise (A), a minor premise (B), and a conclusion (C).
Of course we shall not be called upon to prove so simple a proposition as the one given, but with more difficult ones the method of reasoning is the same. The process which applies a general proposition (A) to a specific instance (C), is called deductive reasoning.
+178. Relation between Inductive and Deductive Reasoning.+—Deductive reasoning is shorter and seems more convincing than inductive reasoning, for if the premises are true and the statement is made in correct form, the conclusions are irresistible. Each conclusion carries with it, however, the weakness of the premises on which it is based, and as these premises are general principles that have been themselves established by inductive reasoning, the conclusions of deductive reasoning can be no more sure than those of inductive reasoning. Each may prove only that the proposition is probably true rather than that it is surely true, though in many cases this probability becomes almost a certainty.
+179. The Enthymeme.+—We seldom need to state our argument in the syllogistic form. One of the premises is usually omitted, and we pass directly from one premise to the conclusion. If we say, “Henry will not succeed as an engineer,” and when asked why he will not, we reply, “Because he is not good in mathematics,” we have omitted the premise, “A knowledge of mathematics is necessary for success in engineering.” A shortened syllogism, that is, a syllogism with one premise omitted, is called an enthymeme.
Thus in ordinary matters our thought turns at once to the conclusion in connection with but one premise. We make a thousand statements which a moment’s thought will show that we believe because we believe some unexpressed general principle. If I should say of my dog, “Fido will die sometime,” no sensible person would doubt the truth of the statement. If asked to prove it, I would say, “Because he is a dog, and all dogs die sometime.” Thus I apply to a specific proposition, Fido will die, the general one, All dogs die, a proposition about which there is no doubt.
Frequently the suppressed premise is not so well established as in this case, and the belief or nonbelief of the proposition will be determined by the individuals addressed, each in accordance with his experience. Suppose that in reading we find the statement, “A boy of fourteen ought not to be allowed to choose his own subjects of study, because he will choose all the easy ones and avoid the more difficult though more valuable ones.” The omitted premise that all boys will choose easy studies, needs to be established by induction. If a high school principal had noticed that out of five hundred boys, four hundred elected the easy studies, he would admit the truth of the omitted premise, and so of the conclusion. But if only one hundred had chosen the easy subjects, he would reject the major premise and likewise the conclusion.
It is evident that in order to be sure of the truth of a proposition we must determine the truth of the premises upon which it is based. An argument therefore is frequently given over wholly to establishing the premises. If their truth can be demonstrated, the conclusion inevitably follows.
Exercises
A. Supply the missing premise for the following:—
1. John will succeed because he has a college education. 2. Henry is happy because he has plenty of money. 3. Candy is nutritious because it is made of sugar. 4. These biscuits will make me ill because they are heavy. 5. This dog must be angry because he is growling. 6. This fish can swim. 7. The plural of the German noun der Garten is die Gärten. 8. It will hurt to have this tooth filled.
B. Supply the reasons and complete the syllogism for each of the following:—
1. This book should not be read. 2. This hammer is useful. 3. That dog will bite. 4. This greyhound can run rapidly. 5. The leaves have fallen from the trees. 6. That boy ought to be punished. 7. It is too early to go nutting. 8. This boy should not study. 9. You ought not to vote for this man for mayor.
+Theme XCVIII.+—Write a paragraph proving the truth of one of the following propositions:—
1. Labor-saving machinery is of permanent advantage to mankind.
2. New Orleans will some day be a greater shipping port than New York.
3. Poetry has a greater influence on the morals of a nation than prose writing.
4. Boycotting injures innocent persons and should never be employed.
5. Ireland should have Home Rule.
6. The President of the United States should be elected by the direct vote of the people.
(Consider your argument with reference to the suppressed premises.)
+180. Errors of Deduction.+—The deductive method of reasoning, if properly used, is effective, but much care needs to be taken to avoid false conclusions. A complete exposition of the variations of the syllogism is not necessary here, but it will be of value to consider briefly three chief errors.
If the terms are not used with the same meaning throughout, the conclusion is valueless. A person might agree with you that domestic arts should be taught to girls in school, but if you continued by saying that scrubbing the floor is a form of domestic art, therefore the girls should be taught to scrub the floor, he would reject your conclusion because the meaning of the term domestic art as he understood it in the first statement, is not that used in the second.
It will be noticed that each syllogism includes three terms. For example, the syllogism,—
All hawks eat flesh;
This bird is a hawk;
Therefore this bird eats flesh,—
contains the three terms, hawk, eats flesh, this bird; of these but two appear in the conclusion. The one which does not (in this case hawk) is called the middle term. If the major premise does not make a statement about every member of the class denoted by the middle term, the conclusion may not be valid even though the premises are true. For example:—
All hawks are birds;
This chicken is a bird;
Therefore this chicken is a hawk.
In this case the middle term is birds, and the major premise, All hawks are birds, does not make a statement which applies to all birds. The conclusion is therefore untrue. Such an argument is a fallacy.
The validity of the conclusion is impaired if either premise is false. In the enthymeme, “Henry is a coward; he dare not run away from school,” the suppressed premise, “All persons who will not run away from school, are cowards,” is not true, and so invalidates the conclusion. It is well to test the validity of your own argument and that of your opponent by seeking for the suppressed premise and stating it, for this may reveal a fatal weakness in the thought.
Exercises
Which of the following are incorrect?
1. The government should pay for the education of its people; Travel is a form of education; Therefore the government should pay the traveling expenses of the people.
2. All horses are useful;
This animal is useful;
Therefore this animal is a horse.
3. I ought not to study algebra because it is a very difficult subject.
4. Pupils ought not to write notes because note writing interferes with the rights of others.
5. All fish can swim; Charles can swim; Therefore Charles is a fish.
6. Henry is a fool because he wears a white necktie.
7. All dogs bark; This animal barks; Therefore this animal is a dog.
+Theme XCIX.+—Write a paragraph proving the truth of one of the following propositions:—
1. The government should establish a parcels post.
2. The laws of mind determine the forms of composition.
3. Training for citizenship should be given greater attention in the public schools.
4. The members of the school board should be appointed by the mayor of the city.
5. In the estimation of future ages —— will be considered the greatest President since Lincoln.
(State your premises. Have you shown that they are true?)
+181. Evidence.+—We may reach belief in the truth of a specific statement by means of deductive reasoning. Commonly, however, when dealing with an actual state or occurrence, we present other facts or circumstances that show its existence. The facts presented may be those of experience, the testimony of witnesses, the opinion of those considered as experts in the subject, or a combination of circumstances known to have existed. To be of any value as arguments, they must be true, and they must be related to the fact that we are trying to prove. These true and pertinent facts we term evidence.
Evidence may be direct or indirect. If a man sees a boy steal a bag of apples from the orchard across the way, his evidence is direct. If instead, he only sees him with an empty bag and later with a full one, the evidence will be indirect. If you testify that early in the evening you saw a tramp enter a barn which later in the evening caught fire, your testimony as regards the cause of the fire would be indirect evidence against the tramp. If you can testify that you saw sparks fall from his lighted pipe and ignite a pile of hay in the barn, the evidence which you give will be direct.
Direct evidence has more weight than indirect, but often the latter is nearly equal to the former and is sufficient to convince us. Even the direct testimony of eye-witnesses must be carefully considered. Several persons may see the same thing and yet make very different reports, even though they may all desire to tell the truth. The weight that we shall give to a person’s testimony will depend upon his ability to observe and to report accurately what he has experienced, and upon his desire to tell the truth.
Notice in the following selection what facts, specific instances, and circumstances are advanced in support of the proposition. Assuming that they are true, are they pertinent to the proposition?
Certain species of these army ants which inhabit tropical America, Mr. Belt considered to be the most intelligent of all the insects of that part of the world. On one occasion he noticed a wide column of them trying to pass along a nearly perpendicular slope of crumbling earth, on which they found great difficulty in obtaining a foothold. A number succeeded in retaining their positions, and further strengthened them by laying hold of their neighbors. They then remained in this position, and allowed the column to march securely and easily over their bodies. On another occasion a column was crossing a stream of water by a very narrow branch of a tree, which only permitted them to go in single file. The ants widened the bridge by a number clinging to the sides and to each other, and this allowed the column to pass over three or four deep. These ants, having no permanent nests, carry their larvae and pupae with them when marching. The prey they capture is cut up and carried to the rear of the army to be distributed as food.
—Robert Brown: Science for All.
+Theme C.+—Present all the evidence you can either to prove or disprove one of the following propositions:—
Select some question of local interest as:— 1. The last fire in our town was of incendiary origin. 2. The football team from —— indulged in “slugging” at the last game. 3. Our heating system is inadequate. 4. It rained last night.
If you prefer, choose one of the following subjects:— 1. The Stuart kings were arbitrary rulers. 2. The climate of our country is changing. 3. Gutenberg did not invent the printing press. 4. The American Indians have been unjustly treated by the whites. 5. Nations have their periods of rise and decay.
(Are the facts you use true? Are they pertinent? Do you know of facts that would tend to show that your proposition is not true?)
+182. Number and Value of Reasons.+—Although a statement may be true and pertinent it is seldom sufficient for proof. We need, as a rule, several such statements. If you are trying to convince a friend that one kind of automobile is superior to another, and can give only one reason for its superiority, you no doubt will fail in your attempt. If, however, you can give several reasons, you may succeed in convincing him. Suppose you go to your principal and ask permission to take an extra study. You may give as a reason the fact that your parents wish you to take it. He may not think that is a sufficient reason for your doing so, but when he finds that with your present studies you do not need to study evenings, that one of them is a review, and that you have been standing well in all your studies, he may be led to think that it will be wise for you to take the desired extra study.
While we must guard against insufficiency of reasons, we must not forget that numbers alone do not convince. One good reason is more convincing than several weak ones. Two or three good reasons, clearly and definitely stated, will have much more weight than a large number of less important ones.