II. THE ARGUMENT

Determining the Points at Issue.—The question finally decided on, we jot down our arguments as they occur to us. But before we get far we find that we must pause to consider on just what points we must bring our evidence to bear. We cannot take things too readily for granted in our argument, for if we do so, it gives our audience or our opponent far too good a chance to challenge our conclusions. Let us take an example. We are arguing that Haneck would make the best captain for next year's football team. By common consent he is a better player than Crosswell, his rival, and we urge that fact in favor of his candidacy. But if we stop a moment we see that we are implying that as a general principle the best player on the team makes the best captain. Now, if our opponent proves that that principle has not been found to be true, our argument falls to the ground. In almost all cases, then, as in this, we find that we draw our conclusions from two related statements, the one a general statement covering many cases, which we may call the major premise, the other a particular statement of fact, which we may call the minor premise. We might state our argument for¬mally, therefore, somewhat as follows:

Major premise: The best player on a team makes the best captain.

Minor premise: Haneck is the best player on our team.

Conclusion: Therefore, Haneck would make the best captain.

To be sure, we seldom state our arguments thus formally: we assume that one or the other premise is true. Yet as we argue, it is necessary for us to be conscious of both premises, so that we may apply our proofs to the one that really needs defending, or to both, if it be required. We shall thus leave no point unguarded that is vital in the establishment of our conclusions,

1.	Major Premise.—An example of the establish¬ment of a major premise has already been given. One more will suffice. It is pointed out in Halleck's favor that he is a senior, while Crosswell is only a junior. But here again there is a general principle to be established, namely, that a senior makes a better captain than a junior. Perhaps we know of juniors who have proved acceptable captains, yet we think that a senior's prestige gives him a decided advantage as a leader. This we must urge, and it is only as we do so successfully that we can consider our argu¬ment unanswerable.

2.	Minor Premise.—At other times, however, we shall find that it is not some general principle that needs demonstration, but some special assertion relat¬ing to a general principle. Halleck, we maintain, would make a better captain than Crosswell because he has a cooler head in a game. Here the general principle, that the man with the cooler head is by so much the better captain, is one that no one would deny. But the statement that Halleck has the cooler head Crosswell's supporters might deny. So we must go to the record of the games themselves to show how HaHeck always kept his head, and how Crosswell was likely to become flustered at a critical moment. And so if we were urging Halleck's popu¬larity with the team; the general principle we could take for granted, the particular statement we must prove.

44. Defending the Points at Issue.—i. Appeal to Common Experience.—We select the important prop. sitions, then, and proceed to establish them. Here we need to show clear-headed judgment if we would be convincing. Perhaps we are appealing to common experience, to some fundamental principle which no one would deny. Are we sure that it touches the case in hand? It is argued that Crosswell should be elected captain because he has done more than any other candidate for the school, that he deserves the honor as a matter of justice. Granted that all this is true; yet we might show our opponents that it is not to the point at all; for the question is, not who deserves to be elected captain, but who would make the best captain if elected—a wholly different matter, we see. 2.	Appeal to Authority.—Or we may be making our appeal to authority, quoting the words of some one whose opinion ought to be of weight. Here too we must be cautious. Is our authority one who would be unprejudiced in his judgment? The captain of last year's team supports Halleck, but that may per¬haps be because he belongs to the same set. Again, can our authority, if unprejudiced, judge clearly of the facts? The alumnus who coached the team favors Crosswell; but he came very irregularly, and could he know of the consistently steady work that Halleck had been doing all along? 3.	Citation of Precedent.—Another very common method of proof is to cite some precedent, or to point to similar circumstances in some other case. The danger is that in the case or cases we select there may be some element in the situation which will be found so different as to invalidate any conclusion we might draw. For example, we look back over the list of captains, and find that they have almost always been chosen from the senior class. That does, very well, until our opponent reminds us that in other teams there were always a number of seniors to choose from, whereas this year HaReck happens to be the only senior playing. Or our opponent may then go on to show that the last time a junior was elected captain, the team was victorious. Here it is our turn to be critical. That case was an exceptional one, the captain having had unusual previous experience, and having been supported by an unusually strong team. In a word, we must apply our precedents with judg¬ment, and strong though they may be to support an argument, we must not put more weight upon them than they may reasonably be expected to bear. 4. Argument from Analogy.—Less direct than the argument from previous experience is that from analogy, and the same test must be used, even more strictly: Are the circumstances such that the analogy is a fair one; or are the conclusions misleading? Let us imagine, by way of example, that Crosswell's sup¬porters urge that Haneck's position in the line is a reason for his not making a good captain, since a general should be in a position from which he can survey the whole field and direct the movement of his forces, True enough, we might reply, if the foot¬ball captain were always expected to give the signals, as a general gives Iti$ orders; but since that duty is generally delegated to the quarter-back, the captain can perform his own duties as well from the line as behind it. Common sense, again, is the test of our reasoning, and if we do not have common sense on our side we may be sure it will be used against us.