TESTING AN ARGUMENT

I. THE QUESTION UNDER DISCUSSION

  1. Is it clearly stated?

(a) Do the terms of statement mean the same to each disputant? (For example, the meaning of the term “gentleman” may not be mutually agreed upon.)

    (b) Is confusion likely to arise as to its purpose?

  2. Is it fairly stated?

    (a) Does it include enough?

    (b) Does it include too much?

    (c) Is it stated so as to contain a trap?

  3. Is it a debatable question?

  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 constitutes 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 constitute 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?