CONSTRUCTING THE ARGUMENT
The last step has left us with the completed brief,—sound, logical, and
comprehensive. In some cases the task ends here, the brief being
constructed for its own sake and left to stand as a cold, formal,
logical framework upholding the truth of the proposition. In this form
it may be laid by for those who are to pass upon its validity, or the
advisability of adopting or rejecting the proposition which it supports;
or the author may explain its structure in an extemporaneous speech.
More often, however, the brief is but the framework of the argument
which is to be built upon it, giving the whole structure grace and
strength.
In this final process great care must be taken to make sure that the
naked framework is entirely covered. No rough edges or angular corners
should be left protruding from the finished product. The whole structure
must be made attractive, and impressive, just as the steel framework of
a great building is enveloped in solid walls of stone and marble made
elegant by the sculptor’s art.
The distinction between conviction and persuasion, which was pointed out
in a previous chapter, again enters into the argumentative process. For
purposes of discussion we may assume that the brief itself produces
conviction because it shows clearly that the proposition is right. But
the naked brief is as cold and formal as a proposition in geometry.
Hence it is the task of the written or spoken argument, based upon that
brief, to arouse the emotions so that it may move the will and thus end
in persuasion. Now, if every individual were a perfectly rational being
the brief would be all that would be necessary to arouse to action,
because by itself it shows what is right and what ought to be done. But
real men in everyday life are not perfectly rational beings. Their
reasoning processes are influenced by environment, education,
prejudices, and acquired habits of thought. The emotions of men, too,
play a large part in shaping their conduct. Therefore, a process must be
instituted in their minds which reaches persuasion through their
combined thoughts and feelings.
From the psychological standpoint we may divide this process into three
stages, I., Attention; II., Interest; and III., Desire. From the
argumentative standpoint we may divide the process into three parts
corresponding to the three parts of the brief, viz., I., Introduction;
II., Proof; and III., Conclusion. Now it will be seen that the
psychological process bears a logical relation to the argumentative
process, and that this relation is one of cause and effect. The end of
all argument is action. If the argument is successful it creates in
their order the mental and emotional conditions of attention, interest,
and desire. That is, the introduction, proof, and conclusion of the
argument result in the attention, interest, and desire of the individual
mind. These processes begin at the same point, since the introduction
secures the attention of the reader or hearer; they proceed along the
argumentative road together, since the proof must maintain the active
interest of the reader or hearer; and they end at the same point,
because the conclusion, if successful, leaves the mind with a desire for
action. Briefly stated, the introduction arouses the attention; the
proof maintains the interest; and the conclusion creates the desire.
=I. Attention—aroused by the introduction.=
The first duty of a written argument is to get itself read; the first
duty of an oral argument is to get itself heard; therefore the argument
must attract the attention of the reader or listener in the beginning or
introduction and must hold his attention throughout the proof. If
attention is not secured at the beginning of the argument it is seldom
secured at all, for the reader will throw the uninteresting argument
aside in disgust, while the listener will allow his thoughts to wander
to other subjects. Thus it is evident that the necessity for arousing
the attention by means of the introduction is very great.
In order that we may clearly apprehend the relation which should exist
between the introduction and attention let us consider, 1. The kinds of
attention, and 2. The methods of securing proper attention by means of
the introduction.
_1. Kinds of attention._
_A. Natural attention._
Natural attention requires no effort of the will to bring the mind to
bear upon the subject in hand. The human mind, when not engaged on some
definite object, attends in an effortless way to practically every
marked change in the circumstances with which it is surrounded. To
things that meet our approval we give our attention willingly, but if we
are displeased or bored by any happening we give our attention
unwillingly. Therefore the object of the introduction is to please in
order that attention may be given willingly.
When a speaker walks out on a platform and faces the audience he at once
attracts the spontaneous attention of practically everybody in that
audience. This much is easy. The problem that now confronts the speaker
is to begin his speech by saying something which will turn this
spontaneous attention into fixed attention. By fixed attention is meant
such attention as willingly follows the train of thought which the
speaker has to present. If the introduction is properly prepared this
fixed attention will be the result, but if the introduction is not
properly prepared the natural attention of the audience quickly
degenerates into what we may term Assumed Attention.
_B. Assumed attention._
This kind of attention is not given willingly, but is assumed by the
audience merely because it happens that the speaker has placed himself
on the platform and there is nothing left for the audience to do but to
listen to him. Now this assumed attention on the part of the listeners
may pass through several degrees of intensity, depending upon the kind
of audience and the degree of the lack of skill with which the speaker
proceeds. At first the speaker is treated to the ordinary manner of any
audience not especially interested in what is being said. This attitude
quickly degenerates into indifference, a point at which the audience
does not care what the speaker says or whether he says anything. Such a
condition as this often continues throughout an entire speech, and the
sooner the speaker realizes that fact and brings his argument to an end
the better. The next stage of assumed attention is that of abstraction.
At this stage the speaker does not even receive the indifferent
attention of the listeners. The mind of each individual before him
wanders off to some subject in which he is interested personally and the
speaker might just as well be talking to empty seats. Usually this is
the least desirable stage of assumed attention. Under some conditions,
however, it is possible to reach a still less desirable stage, which we
may call, for the purpose of making an exhaustive division of this
subject, incivility. At this stage the individuals of the audience
manifest their displeasure by talking among themselves, and making
uncomplimentary remarks about the speaker.
The above discussion will serve to make clear the kind of attention the
speaker must attempt to create by means of his introduction. We shall
now consider some of the methods by which the proper kind of attention
may be secured.
_2. Methods of securing proper attention._
_A. Immediate statement of purpose._
One of the most effective methods of securing the natural attention of
the audience is by an immediate statement of the purpose of the
discourse. It will be remembered that in the preparation of the brief
the student was cautioned against the evils of a long introduction. He
will also recall that the introduction was to contain only the main
issues and the essential steps in the analysis by which they were
reached. This same brevity should characterize the introduction to the
argument. The audience is naturally interested in what the speaker
believes and the reasons for his arguing in favor of or against the
proposition. Therefore he may gain the fixed attention by stating at
once just what he purposes to do. An extreme form of this kind of
introduction would be as follows:
“There are two reasons why we maintain that the Federal Government
should levy a progressive inheritance tax; first, because the national
government needs it as a source of revenue; and second, because it will
remedy the evils resulting from ‘swollen’ fortunes.
“The Federal Government needs this tax as a source of revenue because,
etc.”
This introduction is an immediate statement of the purpose of the
argument and will secure the attention of either reader or hearer.
In addressing an audience there are some cases in which just such an
introduction should be used; for example, when previous speakers have
dwelt upon the analysis of the question, or have given full
dissertations on the origin or history of the subject, or lengthy
definitions of terms and explanations of processes of reasoning. Again,
such an introduction may be used when the time limit is very short or
where the audience is presumed to be thoroughly familiar with the
subject under discussion. Lincoln uses this method in introducing his
discussion on the necessity of a settlement of the slavery struggle, as
the following introduction to his Springfield speech will show:
“If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we
could better judge what to do and how to do it. We are now far in the
fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and
confident promise of putting an end to the slavery agitation. Under the
operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but
has constantly been augmented. In my opinion it will not cease until a
crisis shall have been reached and passed. ‘A house divided against
itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot endure
permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be
dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will
cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it,
and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is
in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it
forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well
as new, North as well as South.”
In this introduction it is seen that Lincoln comes at once to the point:
“I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half
free.” He makes his introduction complete by repeating this idea so that
no one can fail to understand the point he is making. The two sentences
which precede his statement and the three sentences which follow it
state the same idea in different forms. In an introduction the speaker
must not only make his position so plain that it can be understood, but
he must make it so plain that it cannot be misunderstood. This is what
Lincoln does in the introduction to his Springfield speech and it is
what must be done in every effective speech of this character.
The introduction quoted above touches lightly upon the origin and
history of the question with the simple statement: “We are now far into
the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and
confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the
operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but
has been constantly augmented.” More extended statements of the history
here alluded to are given further on in the argument at such places as
they are needed. Here in the Introduction merely the significant results
of origin and history are stated in the briefest possible form. This
method of stating the introduction well illustrates the application of
the general principle that extensive treatment of facts of origin and
history should not be allowed to interfere with the immediate statement
of the purpose of the argument.
_B. Illustrative story._
Sometimes the fixed attention of the audience or reader may be gained by
the use of an illustrative story. No speaker or writer should attempt to
use this method of introduction unless he is absolutely confident of his
ability to carry it through successfully. A story must conform to the
following rules before it can, with safety, be adopted for the purpose
of an introduction:
(1) The story must be interesting.
(2) The story must be well told.
(3) The story must be obviously connected with the point which the
arguer wishes to bring out.
If the story be of the comic variety, and is to be told orally, the
speaker must make sure that the audience will laugh with him and not at
him. Nothing is more fatal to natural attention than a story which
“falls flat.” Regarding the aptness of the story as illustrating the
point which the speaker wishes to make, it need only be suggested that
the connection must be obvious. If any explanation is required after the
story is told it usually serves to kill attention rather than to create
it. The connection must be so obvious that the speaker is able to lead
his auditors skillfully from the story directly to the point at issue.
_C. Quotations._
A third method of introducing an argument is by the giving of a familiar
quotation, or a quotation of the opposing speaker or someone concerned
in the controversy. Such a quotation must be very plainly connected with
the subject, and its bearing on the point which the speaker wishes to
make must be evident. In this respect the requirements of an
introductory story and an introductory quotation are identical. An
example of an introduction in which a quotation is used is that of the
speech of Roscoe Conkling in which he urges the nomination of Ulysses S.
Grant for President. This introduction begins as follows:
“When asked what state he hails from
Our sole reply shall be
He comes from Appomattox,
And its famous apple-tree.”
Likewise a speech advocating the adoption of free silver in our monetary
system began with
“There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which taken at the flood leads on to fortune.”
In some cases the quotation may be used merely to secure the immediate
attention of the audience. In such a case it must bear directly on the
circumstances of the occasion, as when the third speaker in a college
contest took advantage of the two preceding speakers, who had both
forgotten their speeches and had been compelled to retire from the
platform, by beginning his speech with the quotation,
“Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet
Lest we forget, lest we forget.”
The effort was a decided success, if success were to be judged by the
amusement of the audience, but it only prolonged the time required to
get the attention of the audience fixed on the serious subject which the
speaker wished to present. Such a quotation may attract attention, and
if that is all that is required, well and good; but the usual
requirement is to attract attention in such a way that it will be fixed
on the subject in hand. Therefore the temptation to attempt comedy
should be carefully guarded against, and quotations should be used which
will procure more substantial results.
Of the three methods for securing proper attention herein given the
first is by far the most important and the most useful. The second and
third methods should be attempted only when the circumstances are most
favorable as measured by the principles stated in this discussion. The
student must keep constantly in mind the object to be gained by the
introduction, namely,—the natural fixed attention of the audience.
=II. Interest—maintained by the proof.=
_1. Necessity._
The necessity of maintaining the attention of the reader or hearer
throughout the proof is obvious. No permanent results can follow an
argument which is not fully comprehended. Even though the closing
paragraphs arouse the emotions, and a strong persuasive appeal is made
in the conclusion, they only result in persuasion, and we have learned
that in an effective argument conviction and persuasion must exist
together.
_2. Methods of maintaining interest._
_A. Appropriate treatment._
The task of maintaining the interest of auditors or readers is made much
easier if the writer will pause in his preparation and consider the
appropriateness of his treatment of the subject. In order to make this
treatment appropriate three factors must be considered: (1) The speaker
or writer, (2) The audience or reader, (3) The time or occasion. The
argument in order to be effective must be especially adapted to all of
these factors.
_a. Adaptation to speaker or writer._
The writer of an argument, whether the argument is to be written out for
the purpose of being read or whether it is to be delivered in the form
of a speech, must take into consideration his own power and ability.
With these clearly in mind he must present his subject in a way which
seems natural and spontaneous. Never should an attempt be made to
imitate the manner of any particular speaker or writer. Such attempts
always appear unnatural, strained, and artificial, as in truth they are.
The keynote of adapting a speech to the speaker is sincerity. Sincerity
begets naturalness. To be sincere and know that he is in the right leads
the speaker to treat his subject in a manner which will show forth the
best qualities of his character.
The argument should manifest the utmost fairness. It should be clear
that the speaker or writer desires truth and justice to prevail. When
stating an opponent’s position for purposes of refutation the speaker or
writer should be sure that his statements are fair and reasonable and
will bear the inspection of unprejudiced judges. If genuine sincerity
and absolute fairness are put into an argument they will go far toward
adapting it to the personality of the author.
_b. Adaptation to audience or reader._
As a basis for this sort of adaptation a real sympathy with those to
whom the argument is to be addressed is essential. In fact the arguer
must be able to take their view of the subject. He must realize that an
argument which is to be presented to a working-man must be, in a way,
different from one which is to be presented to a banker. To be sure, the
essence of the argument may be the same, but when the task of developing
the brief into a finished product is undertaken, these different
standpoints must be considered.
Not only must this adaptation be considered from the standpoint of those
engaged in different occupations in life, but the predominating
political, social, religious, and scholastic temperament must also be
considered. Especially is this true if the beliefs of the audience or
readers differ from those of the speaker or writer. Usually the speaker
realizes the importance of the latter situation but very often does not
know just how to meet it. Here again sympathy is the keynote. Nothing
should be said which will give offense. The speaker must prepare
carefully each step in his argument so as to lead the audience with him.
In the beginning a common basis must be found, then the true attitude of
the arguer may be made apparent as he proceeds.
An instance of this gradual leading on of the audience is found in
“Julius Caesar,” where Mark Antony addresses the citizens after the
murder of Caesar. The statements of “a plain blunt man” attach a much
different significance to the “honorable men” at the close of the
argument from that which was given in its beginning. Had Antony reversed
the order of his speech he would have been deliberately killed instead
of being hailed as a leader. He adapted his argument to his audience. He
led them along step by step until in the end they arrived at the
inference which he wished to establish and then with a fiery conclusion
he aroused in them the desire for action. Not once did he lose their
interest, because his treatment of the subject-matter took into account
their personal, financial, social, and political welfare. This classical
example illustrates well the maintaining of interest by that method of
appropriate treatment which adapts the argument to the audience.
An example of a speaker addressing an audience of an entirely different
class from that to which he himself belongs is that of Booker T.
Washington on the occasion of the opening of the Atlanta Exposition. Mr.
Washington had great difficulty in determining how he should take up his
subject. But he was wise enough to apply the principle of sympathy with
his audience, and the result was an address which stands as a monument
to his wisdom. He, himself, says that: “No two audiences are exactly
alike. It is my aim to reach and talk to the heart of each individual
audience, taking it into my confidence much as I would a person. When I
am speaking to an audience I care little for how what I am saying is
going to sound in the newspapers, or to another audience, or to an
individual. At the time, the audience before me absorbs all my sympathy,
thought, and energy.” Again he says, referring to the occasion above
mentioned, “I was determined to say nothing that I did not feel from the
bottom of my heart to be true and right.”
Lincoln had some very strong misgivings about the reception of his
Cooper Institute speech. It is said that he felt “miseries of
embarrassment from his sense of the unaccustomed conditions, the
critical and refined audience, his own ungainliness, and his ill-fitting
and wrinkled clothes.” But after he began to speak his embarrassment
disappeared. It was merged into sympathy with his audience, the people
of New York City, for whom he had especially prepared the address. How
well he succeeded in his adaptation we all know, and Nicolay and Hay say
in their account:
“Yet, such was the apt choice of words, the easy precision of sentences,
the simple strength of propositions, the fairness of every point he
assumed, and the force of every conclusion he drew that his listeners
followed him with the interest and delight a child feels in its easy
mastery of a plain sum in arithmetic.”
Every speech must be so adapted to the audience that it will maintain
just this kind of interest from the beginning to the close.
_c. Adaptation to time or occasion._
The final requirement of appropriate treatment is that the argument be
suited to the time or occasion. Every kind of occasion has an
individuality born of its environment. The political argument of a
candidate for office will have a somewhat different setting from the
same argument delivered in the halls of congress. A brief for an
argument might well serve for both occasions, but when that argument is
written out the time or occasion of its presentation must be considered.
The arguer can almost always foresee the circumstances of the particular
occasion or time of presentation and thus adapt his argument to them.
Formal college or intercollegiate debates before competent judges and
with a definite limit as to the length of the speech would demand that
the brief be developed in the most terse and direct manner possible;
whereas the same argument to be delivered before a Political Science
Club, with no judges and no time limit, might be developed much more
fully and adapted to the occasion in a widely different manner. In
conclusion, we must not forget that an argument intended to be read must
be adapted to the writer, the reader and the time; whereas, an argument
written for oral delivery must be adapted to the speaker, the audience,
and the occasion.
_B. Logical structure._
The very fact that a discourse is to take the form of an argument causes
those to whom it is addressed to look for logical structure and clear
reasoning. This expectation must not be ignored. The argument must not
only _be_ logical, but it must _appear_ logical. This logical structure
can be clearly set forth when the argument is written out, by means of
frequent statements of the divisions of the argument and their relation
to each other, summaries, and transition sentences and paragraphs. The
arguer should first tell what he has to prove, then show all along that
he is proving it, and finally call attention to the fact that he has
proved it. If this is well done the logical structure of the argument is
made obvious.
The argument must also show logical progress. We have already seen the
necessity of making the introduction as brief as is consistent with the
other requirements. This requirement regarding brevity must be observed
throughout the development of the brief. Every statement must be
developed to such an extent as to bring out clearly the central thought,
but when this has been done the writer must pass at once to the next
point, thus showing that some real progress is being made. An argument
which moves slowly tires the reader or hearer. Therefore the temptation
to elaborate a point in the brief upon which the writer has a large
amount of information should be carefully guarded against. Each argument
must be stated clearly, with supporting evidence to the point, and the
proof furnished by the evidence plainly shown. This logical progress
will aid greatly in maintaining interest in the proof of the argument.
_C. Style._
Style is the manner of selecting and arranging words, sentences, and
paragraphs in such a way that they will produce an intended effect upon
the reader or hearer. From this definition it will be seen at once that
style is a very important factor in argumentation. The argument is
constructed with the express purpose of producing an intended effect
upon the reader or hearer, and style is a necessary aid. The outward
appearance of things enhances their usefulness. Manufacturers are on the
constant lookout for designs which are really artistic and pleasing to
the eye. It is even claimed that the appearance of food affects its
digestion. Certainly, therefore, an argument ought to possess such style
that it will appear in the most favorable light.
Style, however, must not be considered an external thing. It is not a
trick by which an argument may be decorated for parade. Style is the
thought and the man behind that thought. It is the thought presented in
all its native force and completeness; it is the man with all his
earnestness and sincerity put into his words. No writer or speaker can
obtain good style by imitating that of another person. It must be the
natural expression of his own personality.
_a. Elements of style._
(1). _Vocabulary._
The selection of the words in which the argument is expressed is highly
important. The manuscript should be repeatedly revised with the object
of securing a clear and forcible diction. A general term should not be
used where a concrete term can be employed. All unusual words should be
eliminated and replaced with words which are familiar.
Connotation may enter into the diction of an argument as well as into
other forms of prose. There is a fitness possessed by certain words to
express certain shades of meaning which must be utilized by the arguer.
This regard for the connotative significance of words should guide in
their selection throughout the argument.
Significant expressions and combinations of words should also be brought
in for the purpose of heightening the effect of the argument. These
combinations may be such as are used for political campaign watchwords.
Greater force may be given to them by repetition, as in the case of the
sturdy Roman orator who always closed his speech with the words
“Carthage must be destroyed.” Alliteration may also be employed with
good effect, as in the case of the college debater who, when opposing a
further increase in our navy, designated a battleship as “A devilish
device designed to murder men.” Such suggestions bring ideas to the mind
with so much vividness that the impression which they make is not easily
effaced.
(2). _Sentences._
In framing the sentences of an argument the writer must consider whether
it is designed for oral delivery or merely for the purpose of being
read. If the latter, the rules of ordinary composition furnish a
sufficient guide, but, if the former purpose is to be considered special
attention must be given to sentence-structure. The writer should test
each sentence as it is written by actually reading it aloud or by
building a mental concept of the way in which it will sound when stated
orally. The meaning must be plain, since if the hearer does not grasp it
as the sentence is spoken he cannot grasp it at all. To aid in this
clearness, long and involved sentence-structure should be avoided.
Short, terse sentences should predominate. Both balanced and periodic
sentences may be made to contribute to the oratorical quality which an
argument should possess, but they must not interfere with that brevity
which makes for clearness. The following extract from the argument of
Daniel Webster in the White murder trial well illustrates the clearness
which results from the use of terse sentences.
“The criminal law is not founded in a principle of vengeance. It does
not punish that it may inflict suffering. The humanity of the law feels
and regrets every pain it causes, every hour of restraint it imposes,
and more deeply still every life it forfeits. But it uses evil as a
means of preventing greater evil. It seeks to deter from crime by the
example of punishment. This is its true, and only true main object. It
restrains the liberty of the few offenders, that the many who do not
offend may enjoy their liberty. It takes the life of a murderer that
other murders may not be committed.”
(3). _Paragraphs._
A paragraph should be devoted to each subdivision of the argument. Each
paragraph must be a complete unit. Its length should vary with the
importance of the subdivision to which it is confined. The sentence in
the brief which it is designed to elaborate should stand as the key
sentence of the paragraph.
_b. Qualities of style._
(1). _Clearness._
The most important quality of style is clearness. Clearness is a
valuable aid to interest, for the human mind delights in lucidity. The
audience or reader will seldom take the trouble to figure out exactly
what idea is intended to be conveyed. Most audiences are lazy and must
be assisted to think. The way in which a conclusion is to be reached
must be pointed out to them. Hence the necessity of making plain an
argument which is to be delivered orally is especially great.
Error can easily be smuggled into an argument under cover of confused
language, but clearness shows forth the argument in such a light that
any mistake must be apparent. This satisfies the minds of those
addressed, because they can see and judge for themselves. Moreover,
there is a quality of elegance coming from perfect clearness which
carries conviction with it. If clearness is lacking, grave errors may be
lurking in the obscure phrasing of the discourse and the reader or
hearer cannot feel satisfied in his own mind. Therefore, for the sake of
the writer and for the sake of those to whom the argument is addressed,
clearness should be the predominating quality of style.
It is not amiss at this point to quote in full the famous description of
eloquence from Webster’s oration on Adams and Jefferson. It is not only
a description but it is a great example of the thing described. The
student will do well to ponder over it and try to realize the full
significance of every statement.
“Clearness, force, and earnestness are the qualities which produce
conviction. True eloquence, indeed, does not consist in speech. It
cannot be brought from far. Labor and learning may toil for it, but they
will toil in vain. Words and phrases may be marshalled in every way, but
they cannot compass it. It must exist in the man, in the subject, and in
the occasion. Affected passion, intense expression, and pomp of
declamation, all may aspire to it; they cannot reach it. It comes, if it
comes at all, like the outbreaking of a fountain from the earth, or the
bursting forth of volcanic fires, with spontaneous, original, native
force. The graces taught in the schools, the costly ornaments and
studied contrivances of speech, shock and disgust men, when their own
lives, and the fate of their wives, their children, and their country,
hang on the decision of the hour. Then words have lost their power,
rhetoric is vain, and all elaborate oratory contemptible. Even genius
itself then feels rebuked and subdued, as in the presence of higher
qualities. Then patriotism is eloquent; then self-devotion is eloquent.
The clear conception outrunning the deductions of logic, the high
purpose, the firm resolve, the dauntless spirit, speaking on the tongue,
beaming from the eye, informing every feature, and urging the whole man
onward, right onward to his object,—this, this is eloquence; or rather
it is something greater and higher than all eloquence,—it is action,
noble, sublime, godlike action.”
Simplicity of expression is an important aid to clearness. No speaker
should strive for effect alone. The simplest words and the simplest
sentences should be chosen. Fine writing or high sounding language
should be avoided. The writer should make use of that directness which
characterizes his conversation when he is in earnest.
Concreteness is a most important aid to clearness, for general
statements make little impression upon the average mind. To secure the
best effect concrete particulars must be used to amplify and illustrate
all general statements. This not only makes the meaning of the speaker
more clear but it also gives a force and vigor to the idea presented. In
fact, some writers have named concreteness as the most important aid to
force. In Alden’s _Art of Debate_ a speaker during the time of the
Chicago strike is quoted as having moved his hearers to enthusiasm by
declaring: “If necessary, every regiment in the United States army must
be called out, that the letter dropped by the girl Jennie, at some
country post-office back in Maine, may go on its way to her lover in San
Francisco, without a finger being raised to stop its passage.” This is
concreteness as distinguished from generality. How much less clear and
less forcible would be the general abstract statement that “If
necessary, the whole force of the United States army will be called into
action for the purpose of preventing interference with the mails.”
Instead of making the general statement “There has been a constant
improvement in the methods devised by man for killing his fellow men in
war,” the idea would be more concrete if expressed in the following
terms: “Ever since Shamgar slew the opposing army of the Philistines
with an oxgoad man has been improving the instruments of war until
to-day we have the modern dreadnought weighing thousands of tons and
costing millions of dollars.” Or, the idea can be presented in a still
more concrete manner by stating the following facts: “Ever since David,
the shepherd boy, picked a pebble from the brook; placed it in his
sling; threw it and killed Goliath, man has been improving the method of
throwing things at his fellow men, in order to kill them, until to-day
we have the thirteen inch gun, which throws a projectile weighing one
thousand pounds a distance of thirteen miles.” These concrete instances
when elaborated become illustrations or illustrative instances. In fact,
the last statement given above might be dignified with the name
illustration. Lincoln in his Cooper Institute speech aptly illustrated
the attitude of the South toward secession when he said: “But you will
not abide the election of a Republican President! In that supposed event
you say you will destroy the Union! and then, you say, the crime of
having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a
pistol to my ear and mutters through his teeth ‘Stand and deliver or I
shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer.’” Again Lincoln uses a
most clear and forcible illustration in his Springfield speech when he
presents the following argument from analogy:
“We cannot absolutely know that all these adaptations are the result of
preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions
of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and
by different workmen,—Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for
instance,—and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they
exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices
exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different
pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too
many or too few,—not omitting even scaffolding,—or, if a single piece be
lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet
to bring the piece in—in such a case, we find it impossible not to
believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one
another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft
drawn up before the first blow was struck.”
Such concrete illustrations as are contained in the above quotation
should abound in every argument. The homelier the illustration, the more
pronounced the effect. It requires no especial insight into human nature
to see that such incidents as those quoted above will hold the interest
of the audience or reader much more effectively than cold, formal,
generalized statements. Therefore, the student should make use of
concreteness, and, in fact of all rhetorical devices, for the purpose of
making his argument clear and interesting. Even narratives of some
extended length may be introduced when they are especially pertinent to
the point at issue.
Clearness is aided by making plain in the argument that unity which
exists in the brief. All matter which does not tend to explain or prove
the main proposition should be excluded. It is dangerous for the arguer
to enter into lengthy explanations, for they may be but digressions from
the main argument. It is of course assumed that the brief possesses
unity. The temptation to include matter merely because of its interest
is always strong, but the student must apply the test of immediate
relevancy and be guided by it. The final acceptance of the argument by
the reader or hearer is aided or hindered by his impression of the unity
or solidity of its construction. The brief should be strictly followed
in order that unity may be apparent.
Coherence is also an important aid to clearness. The coherence which
exists in the brief must be expressed in the argument. The connective
“for,” which is used in the brief to show the relation subordinate
statements bear to the main statements, must be expanded in rhetorical
style so as to bring out plainly the force of the relation which it
expresses. In the effort to secure coherence the arguer should not
hesitate to repeat the main issues or even to show how they stand as
proof of the proposition. Every fact of evidence must be made to stand
out distinctly as proof for some statement in the argument. Otherwise
the evidence will be mere dead weight, loading down instead of
supporting the contentions of the arguer.
Connective words, such as “for,” “because,” “hence,” “therefore” should
abound throughout the proof for the purpose of showing precisely what
relation exists between a fact and a statement, or a statement and a
main issue, or a main issue and the proposition. Every fact of evidence
must be clearly connected with the statement which it proves; every
statement supported by evidence must be connected directly with the main
issue which it proves; and every main issue must be connected directly
with the proposition which it proves. This must be done not by
inference, but by an expressed connection. The connection may appear so
obvious that it seems foolish to put it in words, but experience shows
that the connective must be expressed or it will not be comprehended. If
the connections are not expressed the argument will appear incoherent.
Therefore, transitional sentences must be used frequently. When two or
more facts of evidence are offered in support of one statement the words
“First”, “Second”, and “Third”, or “Moreover”, “Again”, “Furthermore”
should be used. At the end of the enumeration what all these facts tend
to show regarding the proposition should be stated.
Coherence is not obtained by chance. To obtain it requires the greatest
care in the original writing out of the argument. A careful process of
revision must then be instituted to make sure that no fact of evidence
is left standing without its appropriate relation to the proposition
being clearly stated. Any break in coherence may mean the loss of part
or all of the evidence offered in support of a main issue.
One of the classical examples of argument noteworthy for its coherence,
and the one most often recommended for study in connection with the
subject of coherence, is Burke’s _Speech on Conciliation_. In that part
of the argument which treats of the American love of freedom, the skill
displayed in making transition from part to part, and the general effect
of coherence which results from this treatment are most conspicuous.
The following extracts taken from a portion of the argument will
illustrate Burke’s method of making his discourse coherent. The dots
indicate omissions.[3]
Footnote 3:
After reading the selections here given the student will do well to
make a study of the speech itself and scrutinize closely the substance
of the parts which these statements serve to connect as well as the
manner of connection. The first sentence may be taken as the main
issue which Burke intends to offer evidence to prove; then come the
sentences which mark the connection of the most important facts of
evidence offered in support of the issue; and finally the summary
which again calls attention to the connection existing between these
pieces of evidence and the proposition contained in the first
statement.
“In the character of the Americans, a love of freedom is the
predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole ... this
(results) from a great variety of powerful causes.... First, the people
of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen.... Their governments are
popular in a high degree.... If anything were wanting to this necessary
operation of the form of government, religion would have given it
complete effect.... The people are Protestants; and of the kind which is
most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion.... (The
Church of England tends to offset this influence in the Southern
colonies). There is, however, a circumstance attending these colonies,
which in my opinion, fully counterbalances this difference.... It is,
that in Virginia they have a vast multitude of slaves. Where this is the
case in any part of the world, those who are free are by far the more
proud and jealous of their freedom.... Permit me, Sir, to add another
circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part towards the
growth and effect of this untractable spirit. I mean their education. In
no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study.... The
last cause of this disobedient spirit in the colonies is hardly less
powerful than the rest, as it is not merely moral, but laid deep in the
natural constitution of things. Three thousand miles of ocean lie
between you and them.... Then, Sir, from these six capital sources: of
descent; of form of government; of religion in the northern provinces;
of manners in the southern; of education; of the remoteness of the
situation from the first mover of government; from all these causes a
fierce spirit of liberty has grown up....”
These transition sentences seem to imply a strong coherent argument,
and, when taken in connection with the context, they form an almost
perfect example of argumentative coherence.
Usually the first sentence of a paragraph developing a new argument is
the transition sentence. Sometimes a more extended transition becomes
necessary, in which case more than one sentence, or even an entire
paragraph, may be devoted to the transition from one part to another.
All of the methods suggested above may be properly employed in giving
the argument coherence.
In this discussion of clearness many things have been considered which
must be taken into account when reading the discussions of Force and
Elegance. No division of style can be absolute nor can a complete
exposition of its qualities be attempted without much repetition. The
student must therefore treat this division of subject-matter as helpful
only in emphasizing the qualities which his argumentative writing and
speaking should possess.
(2). _Force._
We speak of a “forcible argument” with respect because it indicates
something substantial. Force must pervade any writing or speaking which
aims to arouse to action. The material must be presented in an
impressive manner. By so doing we create a keener interest and bring to
the minds of our readers or hearers a more vivid realization of the
significance of our argument. Therefore after all the devices heretofore
considered have been employed to make the argument interesting, the
finished product should be considered with a view to determining whether
it is the most forcible piece of work that can be produced. Perhaps some
slight change in the way in which these devices have been employed will
give a better effect. If so, the modification should be carefully
attended to in order that the argument may possess in its highest degree
the quality of force.
The force of an argument depends in large measure upon the proper use of
emphasis. Emphasis is the means by which attention is called to the
importance or special significance of any portion of the argument. One
of the ways in which any part of the subject-matter may be emphasized is
by expanding or dwelling upon that part. This must always be done with
due consideration for the other parts of the argument. Hence it happens
that proportion is used as a means to secure emphasis. The writer must
determine the really vital parts of his argument and aim to give
emphasis to them alone, because every point cannot be emphasized. An
attempt to emphasize everything results in no emphasis whatever.
Everything must not be on the same dead level, because if it is the
audience or reader will soon lose interest. We sometimes speak of the
important points as the “high places” in the argument. These “high
places” must exist, because it is impossible for the reader or hearer to
remember all the details of a lengthy argument. He will, however,
remember the important points, providing they have been properly
emphasized.
We now turn to the methods by which the best use can be made of the
space devoted to the emphasizing of any particular point. The use of
metaphors, similes, and epigrams is an effective mode of emphasis. An
apt metaphor or simile will remain in the minds of readers or hearers
long after the trend of the argument is forgotten.
Another method frequently employed for the purpose of securing emphasis
is that of the rhetorical question. Since such a question implies an
answer favorable to the party asking it, it must appear plainly that the
answer is bound to be as he desires. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates both
speakers made frequent use of this method, and Webster, in emphasizing
the necessity of finding the murderer of Captain John White asks,
“Should not all the peaceable and well disposed naturally feel
concerned, and naturally exert themselves to bring to punishment the
authors of the secret assassination? Was it a thing to be slept upon or
forgotten? Did you, gentlemen, sleep quite as quietly in your beds after
this murder as you did before? Was it not a case for rewards, for
meetings, for committees, for the united efforts of all the good, to
find out a band of murderous conspirators, of midnight ruffians, and to
bring them to the bar of justice and law?”
The use of repetition for the purpose of emphasis is most important. In
employing this method care should be taken not to overdo it, as such a
process is always fatal to interest. The central idea should be
repeated, but the phrasing should be skillfully varied so as to prevent
the repetition from becoming monotonous. Furthermore, the point of view
should be changed. This not only serves to change the manner in which
the idea is presented but will help to hold the interest. Perhaps one
point of view will appeal more strongly to some people than to others.
Hence by changing the point of view the greatest number of people are
influenced. It must be kept in mind, however, that it is not the point
of view of the writer which changes but merely the point of view from
which he presents the part of the argument to be emphasized.
(3). _Elegance._
As has already been suggested, the appearance of an argument has a great
deal to do with the manner in which it is received. By appearance is
meant the way in which it appears to the mind of the person addressed.
If it appears to be a stiff, formal, arrogant piece of work it may only
excite intellectual curiosity instead of arousing interest and creating
desire. The argument must appeal with freshness and vivacity to the
person addressed. It is no small task to form an elegant forensic from a
solid, rigid brief.
From the student’s study of ease, grace, elegance, and rhythm as found
in books of rhetoric, he will have obtained a fair idea of the quality
of elegance and can make an intelligent effort to secure it in his own
work. But the most effective way in which to acquire a sense of elegance
is by the study of those masterpieces of argument which possess this
quality to a high degree. Rules cannot be formulated nor practicable
principles laid down for obtaining this quality. Just as the musician
acquires a sense of what is proper and what is not proper in his art,
so, must the writer of an argument acquire a sense of what is proper and
what is not proper by a study of the works of those who have been
masters in the art of argumentation. The simple elegance of Lincoln’s
style, the impressive elegance of the style of Webster, and the fiery
elegance of which Patrick Henry was master, must be studied earnestly by
the student. The orations of Webster, the speeches of Burke, and the
arguments of Lincoln should be read over and over again. Favorite
passages should be committed to memory and all the speeches should be
read for the purpose of being enjoyed. This will impart a wealth of
expression and an elegance of style which can be obtained in no other
way.
In considering the subject of “Interest—Maintained by the Proof” let the
student remember that all the methods herein suggested stand ready to
aid him in his supreme desire to be heard if he will but master them and
make them his servants.
III. Desire—created by the conclusion.
Attention has been previously called to the fact that the practical
application of introduction, proof, and conclusion to the creating of
attention, interest, and desire is approximate rather than absolute. The
main part of the argument which is contained in the proof carries
forward the work of persuasion. It creates a desire to understand the
whole truth about the proposition discussed. When we say that the desire
is created by the conclusion we mean that all the good effect produced
by the proof is summed up and presented in such a forcible manner that
it awakens the desire for action.
The proof has maintained the interest of those to whom the argument is
addressed. It has established a firm basis in rational desire. The
object of the conclusion is to arouse emotions sufficient to move the
will. In order that it may do this it should be in the form of an appeal
for the adoption or defeat of the resolution. To understand the way in
which this plea or appeal should be made it is necessary to understand
the forces which influence the individual to act. These forces are known
as the qualities of want. The desire to act results from one or more of
the following seven causes.
_1. Necessity._
If the proof which has been presented for or against the proposition
shows that the proposed measure is necessary the conclusion should make
necessity the basis of the plea. Necessity is a strong basis for an
argument. If a thing is a necessity, all reasonable persons will agree
that it should be adopted, providing there is no predominating
circumstance which makes its adoption inadvisable. Lincoln urged upon
his hearers the necessity of settling the slavery question, Patrick
Henry urged the necessity of resistance to the tyranny of England, and
Daniel Webster urged the necessity of holding the Union inviolate. By
showing that a thing is necessary, that disaster will follow inaction,
orators have aroused the energies of men in order that great reforms
might prevail. The speaker who can show that the cause of action which
he advocates is necessary to the state, to the community, or to the
individual has made a strong plea for its adoption.
_2. Interest._
By an appeal to interest we do not mean anything unworthy of either
speaker or hearer. Legitimate self-interest is perhaps the strongest
motive which incites men to action. This trait of the human character
should not be lost sight of by the student of argumentation. In one way
or another almost every proposition may be made to appeal to the
self-interest of the individual. For the purpose of being systematic we
may consider this self-interest under the three heads, Convenience,
Pleasure, and Profit.
_A. Convenience._
If it can be shown that the adoption of a definite course of action will
be for the convenience of the individual a strong point in its favor has
been established. If emphasis can be placed upon the fact that it will
be for the convenience of the community as a whole the argument will be
still stronger, for some people love to flatter themselves that they are
considering the interests of their fellow men as well as of themselves,
and many people are honest in this impulse. Moreover, this public spirit
is an actual factor in determining the actions of men. Such an argument
is especially valuable in discussing local questions. In advocating the
building of a new bridge, the granting of concessions to a proposed
railroad or street car line the appeal to the convenience of the people
of the community is very strong. By the application of a little
ingenuity in connecting the points of the argument with the everyday
life of the people to whom it is addressed, the effectiveness of the
conclusion may be greatly increased.
_B. Pleasure._
The average person is inclined to accept that which is pleasing to him
and reject that which is displeasing. In the construction of the proof
we have been trying to keep interest alive by presenting our subject in
an interesting manner. In the conclusion we must sum up this matter in
such a way as to conform to the pleasure of those addressed. The
building of a new theatre, a town hall, or a park may be made to appeal
to many interests of the community, but after all is said the fact
remains that the main justification for such buildings rests upon the
pleasure which they give to individual members of the community. As in
the case of convenience, this element of pleasure may be utilized with
practical results in the closing plea.
_C. Profit._
The strongest appeal to self-interest can be made by showing that the
action advocated will result in profit to the individual. By showing
that a proposed plan of taxation will result in lowering the yearly
amount of tax which John Jones will have to pay, you will probably
secure the vote of John Jones in favor of your proposition. By showing
that the purchase of a potato digger will increase the amount of money
which a farmer can make raising potatoes, you have gone far toward
convincing that farmer that he should buy a potato digger. By showing
that consolidation will yield greater profit to the business man you
have done much to persuade him to join the combination. By showing that
the lowering of the tariff schedule will reduce the cost of living you
may induce many persons to advocate a lower tariff. In every argument
self-interest plays an important part. The conclusion should therefore
leave firmly fixed in the mind of the reader or hearer the fact that the
action advocated will be for his best interests.
_3. Jealousy, vanity, and hatred._
An appeal to the baser passions of mankind is not to be commended.
Nevertheless, we are here treating of real arguments in a real world.
Since the end of argumentation is action, and since jealousy, vanity,
and hatred are motives which stir men to action, we must consider them.
Personal motives may furnish subsidiary inducements to action. The
jealousy which one business man feels toward his competitor may induce
him to adopt new methods of doing business in order that he may outdo
his rival. The vanity which a manufacturer feels in the superiority of
his goods may be the determining factor in the adoption of improved
machinery. The hatred which the honest citizen entertains for boss rule
may be the determining factor in deciding the way he will vote. The
ingenuity of the student must be employed in trying to fathom the unseen
causes which guide the activities of his fellows.
_4. Ambition._
The ambition of an individual to excel in his business, trade, or
profession; the ambition of a community to have the best social and
educational advantages; and the ambition of a nation to outreach the
world in trade and commerce, may all form the substantial basis for
action. By appealing to this praiseworthy ambition the emotional element
is added to the element of intellectual conviction.
_5. Generosity._
Every human being is moved at times by generous impulses which may arise
from a variety of causes. The arguer should study these causes and
attempt to stimulate the impulses. Dignify the position of those to whom
the appeal is made by showing them that they can well afford to be
generous.
_6. Love of right and justice._
The arguer should never fail to leave his hearers with the conviction
that he champions a just cause. This appeal can always be made, because
under no circumstances should anyone champion a cause which is unjust.
In this age people as a whole are willing to do the right thing, despite
the actions of particular individuals or groups of individuals to the
contrary. Abstract justice in its application to the particular
proposition should form the basis of the final plea.
_7. Love of country, home, and kindred._
The hearts of men have always been stirred by the appeal to patriotism.
Action in its most intense form will follow the right appeal to love of
country. The protection of home and kindred has from the dawn of history
been the prime motive in all great world movements. Other causes may
appear on the surface, but underlying these, in one form or another is
this primal cause. Wars are waged and nations built up or overthrown
because of the use or abuse of this power. Therefore the speaker must
make a broad application of his particular argument in the closing
paragraph.
With these fundamental suggestions in mind regarding the attitude which
the conclusion should take, we will now turn to the form in which it is
to be presented.
The conclusion must conform to the brief by summing up the main
arguments and putting them clearly before the audience. This summary is
necessary in order to make the proof clear and forcible. It should
contain the main issues, and, whenever practicable, the subordinate
reasons supporting them, in order that the chief points in the proof of
the proposition may be recalled by the audience.
An example of the simple summary which is often quoted as a model, is
the conclusion of the argument made by Daniel Webster in the case of
_Ogden_ v. _Saunders_:—
“To recapitulate what has been said, we maintain, first, that the
Constitution, by its grants to Congress and its prohibitions to the
states, has sought to establish one uniform standard of value, or medium
of payment. Second, that, by like means, it has endeavored to provide
for one uniform mode of discharging debts, when they are to be
discharged without payment. Third, that these objects are connected, and
that the first loses much of its importance, if the last, also, be not
accomplished. Fourth, that, reading the grant to Congress and the
prohibition on the states together, the inference is strong that the
Constitution intended to confer an exclusive power to pass bankrupt laws
on Congress. Fifth, that the prohibition in the tenth section reaches to
all contracts, existing or in the future, in the same way that the other
prohibition, in the same section, extends to all debts, existing or in
the future. Sixthly, that, upon any other construction, one great
political object of the Constitution will fail of its accomplishment.”
Again in the argument on the Presidential Protest he summarizes with
effect and concludes:—
“—We have not sought this controversy; it has met us and been forced
upon us. In my judgment, the law has been disregarded, and the
Constitution transgressed; the fortress of liberty has been assaulted,
and circumstances have placed the Senate in the breach; and, although we
may perish in it, I know we shall not fly from it. But I am fearless of
consequences. We shall hold on, Sir, and hold out, till the people
themselves come to its defense. We shall raise the alarm, and maintain
the post, till they whose right it is shall decide whether the Senate be
a faction, wantonly resisting lawful power, or whether it be opposing,
with firmness and patriotism, violations of liberty, and inroads upon
the Constitution.”
In concluding this chapter on constructing the argument, let us again
revert to the fact that the conclusion must be presented in such a way
as to create a desire for action. The conclusion must “clinch” the
argument. The time has come for the reader or hearer to act, or
determine upon action. All the labor spent upon the introduction in
arousing and fixing the attention, and all the labor spent upon the
proof in maintaining the interest and building a firm basis for
persuasion in rational conviction, is now lost unless the conclusion
rises supreme above these and presents a culmination forcible and
commanding. The conclusion should reap the harvest of persuasion sown
throughout the argument. The emotions must be aroused as they have not
been aroused in the presentation of the proof; they must be stimulated
to the highest pitch. The conclusion must command the best powers of the
speaker or writer. It must unite the audience, the subject, and the
personality of him who presents the argument into one mighty current of
thought and emotion which leads onward to action.