The Art of Public Speaking Part 39

The Art of Public Speaking Part 39

4. _What is the pivotal point in the whole question?_


5. _What are the subordinate points?_


II. THE EVIDENCE


1. _The witnesses as to facts_


(_a_) Is each witness impartial? What is his relation to the subject at issue?


(_b_) Is he mentally competent?


(_c_) Is he morally credible?


(_d_) Is he in a position to know the facts? Is he an eye-witness?


(_e_) Is he a willing witness?


(_f_) Is his testimony contradicted?


(_g_) Is his testimony corroborated?


(_h_) Is his testimony contrary to well-known facts or general principles?


(_i_) Is it probable?


2. _The authorities cited as evidence_


(_a_) Is the authority well-recognized as such?


(_b_) What const.i.tutes him an authority?


(_c_) Is his interest in the case an impartial one?


(_d_) Does he state his opinion positively and clearly?


(_e_) Are the non-personal authorities cited (books, etc.) reliable and unprejudiced?


3. _The facts adduced as evidence_


(_a_) Are they sufficient in number to const.i.tute proof?


(_b_) Are they weighty enough in character?


(_c_) Are they in harmony with reason?


(_d_) Are they mutually harmonious or contradictory?


(_e_) Are they admitted, doubted, or disputed?


4. _The principles adduced as evidence_


(_a_) Are they axiomatic?


(_b_) Are they truths of general experience?


(_c_) Are they truths of special experience?


(_d_) Are they truths arrived at by experiment?


Were such experiments special or general?


Were the experiments authoritative and conclusive?


III. THE REASONING


1. _Inductions_


(_a_) Are the facts numerous enough to warrant accepting the generalization as being conclusive?


(_b_) Do the facts agree _only_ when considered in the light of this explanation as a conclusion?


(_c_) Have you overlooked any contradictory facts?


(_d_) Are the contradictory facts sufficiently explained when this inference is accepted as true?


(_e_) Are all contrary positions shown to be relatively untenable?


(_f_) Have you accepted mere opinions as facts?


2. _Deductions_


(_a_) Is the law or general principle a well-established one?


(_b_) Does the law or principle clearly include the fact you wish to deduce from it, or have you strained the inference?


(_c_) Does the importance of the law or principle warrant so important an inference?


(_d_) Can the deduction be shown to prove too much?


3. _Parallel cases_


(_a_) Are the cases parallel at enough points to warrant an inference of similar cause or effect?


(_b_) Are the cases parallel at the vital point at issue?


(_c_) Has the parallelism been strained?


(_d_) Are there no other parallels that would point to a stronger contrary conclusion?


4. _Inferences_