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_