1. Fear of occupying room 13 in a hotel is foolish. 2. Belief in your luck is rational.

3. The fire was of incendiary origin.

4. The burglar entered by climbing the porch.
5. The ring was lost between home and school.
6. The child is lost, not kidnapped.

7. The book has been mislaid; it is not stolen.
8. That piece of goods wears unusually well.
9. She is offended about something I have done.
10. The candidate was not sincere in his motives.

Arguments based on Specific Instances.

135. Burke in the conciliation speech offered, as an argument that concession was in accordance with English policy, four historical instances or examples, — the cases of Ireland, Wales, Chester, and Durham, -showing that these had been pacified by giving them full English privileges and rights. Also against Lord North's plan of conciliation, Burke urged that it was "without example of our ancestors." Thus, he virtually made an argument out of Lord North's inability to produce from English history any example or instance.

Specific instances, if pertinent, are arguments for a proposition; and the absence of a specific instance is also an argument, counting against a proposition needing such support.

Assignment in finding Specific Instances.

136. For one of the first five of the following propositions (or the negative of it) find at least one specific instance. Show how the absence of a specific instance could be used as an argument against any one of the last five propositions.

1. The honor system in examinations should be adopted. 2. Cities should own their lighting plants.

3. Generosity in diplomacy is the truest wisdom.

4. Patience, perseverance, and skill will teach an animal any. thing.

5. Gratitude is thankfulness for favors expected.

6. Arizona and New Mexico should be united in one state. 7. The ballot should be taken away from ignorant voters. 8. Banks should be allowed to issue circulation without limit. 9. The government should provide work for everybody. 10. All punishments for crime should be abolished.

Arguments based on Principles, Experiences,
Authority.

137. In favor of the simplicity of his scheme for conciliating the colonies, Burke used as arguments the following principles and maxims: "Refined policy ever has been the parent of confusion; and ever will be so, as long as the world endures. Plain, good intention, which is as easily discovered at the first view as fraud is surely detected at last, is, let me say, of no mean force in the government of mankind. Genuine simplicity of heart is an healing and cementing principle." In another part of his speech, Burke pointed out the absence of any intelligible principle in Lord North's plan for dealing with the colonies, as an argument against it. "It is," he said, "a mere project. It is a thing new; unheard of; supported by no experience; justified by no analogy; without example of our ancestors, or root in the constitution. It is neither regular parliamentary taxation nor colony grant."

A principle, a maxim, an appeal to experience or to authority, is an argument for a proposition, if pertinent to it; and so is the absence of any one of these, if the absence is significant.

138.

Assignment in finding Principles.

Supply a principle, an appeal to common experience, an appeal to authority, in favor of or against one of the following. If you cannot, show how that fact itself may be used as an argument.

1. This school should have a better ventilating system.

2. The Australian ballot system should be adopted everywhere. 3. No student should be allowed to carry five studies at a time. 4. The curfew ordinance should be enforced.

5. Thanksgiving Day football should be prohibited.

6. Pupils should be allowed to study together.

7. Girls should have a different course of studies from that prescribed for boys.

S. Fishing in a swimming-hole will not bring a catch.

9. Pupils should occupy alternate seats in an examination.

10. The government should own and operate a public telegraph system in connection with the post-office.

Arguments based on a General Theory.

139. Back of every proposition there will be found certain theories that will influence, or even determine, a person's attitude toward the proposition as soon as the theories are recognized, and will lead him to find reasons for or against it. If the proposition is, "A should be graduated, though he has never studied algebra," those who favor and those who oppose his graduation will betray very quickly conflicting theories of education. If the proposition is, "This shade tree should be cut down in order to widen the street," we soon discover, from what people say for or against the proposition, that there are many theories of "improvement," "progress," and the

like, on the one hand, and conflicting theories of "beautifying the city," "preserving old landmarks," "the duties of city officers," on the other. What What a person thinks about the proposition, "Cities should own and operate street railways," may be determined by a theory of government, or by some theory of taxation or of labor. The proposition, "Sunday baseball should be prohibited," involves theories of personal, as well as public rights and morals, and of the state's relation thereto. A person may be fully cognizant of the theory underlying the proposition, and may present it openly; or he may be only vaguely conscious of it, and, assuming it to be true, may make appeals to it as if it were accepted by all as an axiom. In either case the theory is present, and is used as an argument for the proposition. It is important, therefore, in studying a proposition, to penetrate beneath the surface to the various conflicting theories that underlie it. One way of doing this is to ask the question, On what theory or theories could this proposition be attacked and defended? or, if it be a proposition that has long been discussed, On what theory or theories has it been attacked and defended? How did the proposition come to be discussed? What was the origin of the controversy? What must be assumed to be true in order that the proposition may be fairly regarded as debatable? If any one of these questions can be answered by reading and thinking, one or more underlying theories will be discovered with which the proposition will square.

A general theory with which the proposition agrees, if accepted as true or proved true, is an argument in favor of the proposition.

140. Assignment in supplying a General Theory. What theory is back of each of the following propositions? 1. The city council should appropriate money for free band

concerts.

2. The school should provide free noon-lunches.

3. The playing of pianos at midnight should be prohibited by ordinance.

4. A boy should be excused from any study on request of his parent.

5. Newspapers should not be permitted to print criminal news. 6. Novels should be censored for literary form.

7. Women should be allowed to vote on the same terms as men.

How a Fact or a Theory becomes an Argument. 141. Every argument, of whatever kind, involves an element of fact and an element of theory. A fact is adduced because it is supposed to have a certain meaning; that is, because a certain inference may be drawn from it. A theory is adduced because it explains or gives meaning and sanction to certain facts of the case. Thus, the fact that A is a financier long accustomed to the safe management of large funds, when used as an argument for electing A city treasurer, involves the theory that "all men who have been accustomed to the safe management of large funds make good city treasurers." The theory that "the state should prevent people from interfering with one another's rights," when used as an argument for the proposition, "Sunday baseball should be prohibited," raises a question of fact: "Does Sunday baseball interfere with the rights of certain classes of people?"

A fact or a theory becomes an argument because an inference is drawn from it, or an application is made of it.