It is

(d) The joint inductive and deductive method. enough to say here that no reasoner should confine himself to a single logical method. Let him learn to use all methods with equal accuracy and facility.

BREAKING DOWN AN ARGUMENT

The orator frequently finds himself set in opposition to another speaker whose arguments he must either surpass or refute. How to do the one no instruction can tell him; the process of refutation, however, may be definitely studied. Sometimes, but not always, will it suffice simply to present truth and depend upon its force to demolish the opposite position. Often more aggressive measures are needed.

Comparatively few hearers who are actively against you can be won over to be your partisans; much of your effort must be to cause men to get off the fence, and stay off,-on your side. Now and then, however, the orator's victory will depend upon winning over a stubbornly adverse auditor. It is related of the great advocate, Rufus Choate, that: "In one jury address of five hours, he hurled his oratorical artillery for three of them at the hard-headed foreman, upon whom all his bolts seemed to be spent in vain. At last the iron countenance relaxed, the strong eyes moistened, and Choate was once more master of the situation." 1

There are four ways to break down an argument, whether it has been definitely stated by an opponent, or

1 Oratory and Orators, Matthews, p. 372.

you suspect it to exist in the minds of those you wish to convince. All of these methods should be employed, but which of them shall predominate will depend upon your object.

(a) The orator may employ simple rebuttal, and meet fact with fact, argument with argument.

(b) He may offer no arguments in rebuttal, but, disregarding the opposite view, simply depend upon the power of his own affirmative reasoning.

(c) He may show that no position other than his own can be reasonably held.

This third result may be attained by:

(1) Reducing the alternative proposition to an ab surdity (reductio ad absurdum).

The speaker proceeds by supposing, for the sake of his argument, that the opposite of his reasoning is correct. This supposition is then followed out logically, until it becomes evident that the assumed position is absurd. There is room here for the play of a biting wit, but the reasoner's position must be well taken if he would not be retorted upon in kind.

Example: A man is charged with having written a treasonous article. The defense admits, for the sake of the argument, that the sentiments are treasonous, but shows that every one of them is contained in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution of the United States,—this is sufficient to prove the absurdity of the charge.

(2) Offering either horn of a dilemma.

This method divides the opposite ground into the only two possible positions, and then confutes each by convincing argument. The result is that the reasoner's position is the only one left, and therefore must be adopted.

A familiar example is the following: The Roman soldiers declared that while they were sleeping the Disciples came and stole Christ's body from the tomb. Now the soldiers were either asleep or awake. If they were asleep, were they competent to testify that the body was stolen? Sleeping sentinels deserve death. If they were awake, why did they not oppose the theft? They made no outcry. Therefore, the testimony of the soldiers is false, and Christ is risen from the dead.

There is great danger of false reasoning in employing the dilemma. "If the dilemma is accurate in form, the conclusion follows, and the only way of meeting it is by showing that the alternatives in the premises are not exhaustive that there may be another supposition." 1

The well-known dilemma in Don Quixote is based upon false reasoning. In brief it is this: At one end. of a bridge stood a courthouse, at the other a gallows. Every one who sought to cross the bridge was made to answer two questions, under oath, Where are you going? What is your object in going there? If he swore truly, he was permitted to go free. If he swore falsely, he was to be hanged on the gallows at the other end of the bridge.

1 Logic, McCosh, p. 150.

Now a man came to the courthouse and made oath that he was going to the other end of the bridge, and that his object in going was that he might be hanged. The honest Sancho Panza was in a dilemma: if he hanged the man, he must hang him for telling the truth; if he made him go free, the man would deserve death for false swearing.

A false dilemma may be answered by another. "An Athenian mother said to her son, Do not engage in public affairs; for if you do what is just, men will hate you, and if you do what is unjust, the gods will hate you.' This the son rebutted by the following retort: 'I ought to enter into public affairs; for if I do what is unjust, men will love me, and if I do what is just, the gods will love me.'

(3) Logical elimination is the third method.

This form of reasoning states "all the possible aspects of the question, then proceeds to eliminate, one by one, until only the one tenable aspect is left." 1

The "Unjust Steward" 2 reasoned by logical elimination when he was called to give an account of his stewardship: "Then said the unjust steward within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do," etc. But he failed, as many weak reasoners do, to enumerate all the possible courses of action.

1 Working Principles of Rhetoric, Genung, p. 625.

2 St. Luke xvi. 1-8.

The fourth method of destructive argument remains:— (d) He may point out a fallacy in the opposite position. A fallacy is any error which makes reasoning unsound and inconclusive. A fallacious conclusion is also called a fallacy.

Whately includes the idea of deception in his definition when he says that it is "any unsound mode of arguing, which appears to demand our conviction, and to be decisive of the question in hand, when in fairness it is not." The orator must be as quick to discern weakness in his own reasoning as in that of others. Stupendous issues have gone wrong because of a single undetected fallacy! An elaborate structure of argument will totter to its fall if its foundation is proven to be fallacious.

A keen mind may avoid or detect a fallacy without possessing a knowledge of formal logic. The list of possible fallacies is long and intricate, but only a few fundamental errors in reasoning need here be noted.

(1) A false conclusion is sometimes drawn from true premises.

Logicians call this a non sequitur — it does not follow; the premise will not warrant the conclusion; as:

MAJOR PREMISE: All men are animals.

MINOR PREMISE: A four-footed animal is not a man.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, a four-footed animal is not an animal. Though no one could dispute the truth of the premises, still they are not logically related, and the conclusion does not follow. The true conclusion is

Therefore, not all animals are men.