The Art of Public Speaking by Dale Carnegie and J. Berg Esenwein online

XXIII INFLUENCING BY ARGUMENT

page 2 of 6 | page 1 | table of contents

(_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?

(_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_

(_a_) Are the antecedent conditions such as would make the allegation probable? (Character and opportunities of the accused, for example.)

(_b_) Are the signs that point to the inference either clear or numerous enough to warrant its acceptance as fact?

(_c_) Are the signs cumulative, and agreeable one with the other?

(_d_) Could the signs be made to point to a contrary conclusion?

5. _Syllogisms_

(_a_) Have any steps been omitted in the syllogisms? (Such as in a syllogism _in enthymeme_.) If so, test any such by filling out the syllogisms.

(_b_) Have you been guilty of stating a conclusion that really does not follow? (A _non sequitur_.)

(_c_) Can your syllogism be reduced to an absurdity? (_Reductio ad absurdum._)

Next

self help sanctum is created and compiled by abracad - contact: info@twinisles.com