art of expression, we may first consider the Qualities of Style. For just as we may consider the different qualities in handling the different kinds of composition (p. 168), so may we throw some light upon this kind of composition by considering the relation to it of the Qualities of Style. I shall be able only to give you a few words on Clearness, in this respect the most important quality. Argumentation is not a simple matter, and it may be beyond all your efforts to make a particular course of reasoning anything but difficult and abstruse. Force is a quality of the utmost value in Argumentation, but the force of an argument should lie chiefly in the matter, and not so much in the expression. The chief quality in Argumentation is Clearness.

We have already seen various ways (48, 72) in which by manipulating paragraph-structure, illustration, and so on, we could do more or less to make our writing clear. These aids to clearness may be used in any kind of writing; is there anything especially applicable to Argumentation ?

We must here make chief mention of a practice, although not applicable to Argumentation alone, already spoken of under the head of the Paragraph (33); namely, the making of an outline beforehand, or, as it is more commonly called in the case of Argumentation, a brief. For this drawing of briefs may be urged all the reasons that were given on pp. 103-106, and the further one that as Argumentation is usually a more difficult and hazardous matter even than Exposition, such a preliminary is all the more necessary. It is so necessary in Argumentation to see clearly just what it is that you allege; you must not spare yourself, you must put your reasoning to the severest test to determine its validity. It may look very poor and thin when you state merely the skeleton of it, stripped of the amplification

1 This matter deserves far more extended treatment than can be given it here. Mr. Baker has developed the use of the Brief in very useful fashion, as may be seen in his Specimen Briefs; Specimens of Argumentation, pp. 1-5; Principles of Argumentation, pp. 83-166.

which will make it fluent, embodied, convincing. But you will find it worth while to take the trouble.

In these briefs you want first, in an introduction, to state the question and the reasons for considering it. Then in the main part of the brief you will put the argument, not merely noting heads, but stating each point fully enough to give the idea to one not already acquainted with it. State it in the form of a regular sentence, as, for example, to take an instance used before (p. 333):

Refutation.

1. The argument that the United States should control the telegraph because Great Britain and other nations do so is not conclusive; for

The United States differs from the nations in question in points affecting the matter.

(a) The United States has developed chiefly through private enterprise.

(b) The United States is opposed to the existence of a large office-holding class.

(c) The United States government has only such powers as are delegated by the Constitution.

This illustration is a piece of refutation. Refutation may be given a place by itself in the brief, but if you have but a bit here and a bit there it may find its place in connection with the different parts of the positive argument. After the argument pro and con has been stated you may try in your conclusion to summarize the reasoning. 110. The Canons of Rhetoric. Lastly, what is to be said about our general principles? Which is of the most importance here? Or it may be simpler to inquire which is of the least. It is on the whole not so important to think of Variety and Selection; of more importance are Sequence and Proportion, and, I suppose, Connection and Unity come first. But no one of these canons is of such importance as in Narration or Description, chiefly because of the

different effect usually aimed at in those kinds of composition, the first two being intended for the appreciation, but Argumentation for the understanding.

Unity, however, is important-how important any one will realize who recalls an "informal discussion" where four or five men were all arguing at once. Define the issue

and stick to it. It is harder to read an argument than most things; one's mind lapses more from strict attention, a very little irrelevancy or wandering is enough to make one lose the thread of the reasoning. It you want the reader to follow you, you must keep as closely to the path as you can; don't step aside after the flowers of ornament or of anything else, for the reader may not find you when you get back.

Next to Unity is Connection. If you have one logically constructed chain of reasoning, you will not find it difficult to make the connections easy and agreeable. More difficult, but more necessary, is it to manage one's transitions and connections when one is to allege a number of separate reasons, connected with each other only by their connection with the main question. Here you must exercise your ingenuity to manage the matter, for it is really of rather more importance as far as the pleasure and convenience of the reader are concerned than in the previous case.

As to Sequence, you may note, as in the case of Narration (8), that Argumentation is better adapted to expression in language than Exposition or Description. Where you have an argument that is a chain of reasoning, where each point depends upon the point before and leads up to the point following, there the idea will move, will go forward, and so does Language. In such cases, as in Narration, Sequence is a very simple matter. But, as before, if your argument consists of several reasons which attest each one the probability of the point at issue, there is no natural sequence, and it is more necessary to consider the matter.

It is usual to put the most important reasons last and first, the principle being, I suppose, to conciliate the reader at the beginning, to leave him with a good impression at the end, and to cover up the weaker arguments. This rule, however, is not of very great value, for, as a general principle, the weaker arguments are better omitted.

Proportion in Argumentation is not hard to understand. It means economy of effort; it means that the unimportant things are not to catch the reader's attention; it means that the main points are to stand out. But to give a practical example of Proportion I will not extend my treatment of it, and observing (in a subordinate clause) that there is little to say of Variety and Selection in Argumentation, I will bring this slight series of hints on the subject to a close.

INDEX.