Free Classic Speeches Search! Enter Your Topic Below:

Chapter 6. How Do We Talk About Controversial Material?

In your search for materials for your speeches, you will sometimes find that one source contradicts information from another source. The Russians believe that they lead the world in space research; some United States officials make the same claim. The President has said that the United States Information Agency is doing a commendable job, but a representative of the opposing political party writes that taxpayers are not getting their money's worth and recommends a cut in the U.S.I.A. budget. Some members of the House of Representatives highly recommend federal aid to education; others, equally respected, denounce it as an attempt to destroy the public schools.

Are the Russians ahead of us? Is the U.S.I.A. doing a commendable job? Should we adopt federal aid to education?

All of these are subjects which are suitable for speeches. Suppose you choose one of them for a topic. How can you determine what to believe? This is a problem that you, as a speaker, must face if you are to address an audience in a responsible manner. You must not only know how to go about analyzing the beliefs of others, but you must also have the ability to reach sound conclusions from examining these beliefs.

1. Verifying Facts and Opinions

There are two types of information: "facts" and "opinions". Society appears to define a "fact" as something about which there is very little doubt; "opinions" range from those having little doubt to those having every doubt. If we establish something as a "fact", we are confident and rely upon its validity; if we establish something as an "opinion", our certainty varies.

Facts

Did it rain last night? What time is it? Who won the ball game? Because so many people have an equal opportunity to observe the events connected with the answers to these questions, we call them questions of "fact". We seldom disagree over answers to these questions, because they involve events that many people witness.

Unfortunately, when we come right down to it, there are not many of these "facts" that we can use in a controversial speech, because the very nature of the controversy implies that not everyone has observed the same thing in the same way. If a man steals a loaf of bread in broad daylight, before twenty-five witnesses, all of whom positively identify this man as the thief, there is practically no controversy about who stole the bread. So many people witnessed the crime that it becomes a "fact" that this particular man, whom all of the witnesses identified, was the thief.

Suppose, however, the theft took place at night, in the dark, with no eye-witnesses present. Here we find ourselves involved with something else. Unless the robber has been careless enough to leave his fingerprints, so that a factual identification of another sort can be made, we must rely on something less certain, namely "opinions".

Opinions

In order to point out the problems involved in interpreting "opinions", let us take the example of a student on the honor council of a large high school. How will this student go about making a decision based on "opinions"?

A newly prepared test for the chemistry class is missing from Mr. Jenkins' desk. Mr. Jenkins reports the absence of the material to the chairman of the student honor council. The chairman calls a meeting of his group, and, after some discussion, the council decides to interview each member of the chemistry class, since Mr. Jenkins' office adjoins the chemistry laboratory.

Each member of the class is faced with the problem of explaining his actions to demonstrate his innocence. Ned is a member of the chemistry class. He knows that he did not take the test, but he must appear before the honor council. The problem arose over a question of opinion, because his actions were not and could not be observed by others during the period in which the test was taken.

John is a member of the honor council. His problem is different from Ned's. He does not know whether Ned is innocent or guilty. Upon what can he base his conclusion? Here are five steps which John should follow to verify the opinions he will hear about Ned's innocence or guilt.

A. Accuracy: As John listens to Ned explain his actions during the period in which the test was taken, he attempts to evaluate the accuracy of what Ned says. Do some statements of Ned's conflict with other statements, either statements Ned himself made or testimony someone else has given? Is he consistent concerning his whereabouts? Generally speaking, we respect consistency and disrespect inconsistency.

Is Ned specific? Can he give an exact account of himself, or is his story vague and hesitant? Speaking in general and in particular on controversial subjects, we must be accurate. Our material must be consistent and specific. Do not say, "It does not cost much for our class to sponsor a child under the plan I read about the other day"; say, "It costs $150.00 a year to sponsor a child in Korea, Greece, France, Italy, Lebanon, Austria, Finland or West Germany, under the Save the Children Federation, which has its offices on the Boston Post Road, Norwalk, Connecticut."

B. Appearance: John will not only listen to what Ned says; he will also observe Ned's actions. Does Ned seem sincere? Does he answer directly the questions asked him? Does he seem unusually tense, fidgety, or nervous? In short, does he give the impression of being guilty or innocent?

We all know that looks can be deceiving and that some guilty parties can appear most innocent. The "feeling" that you get about a person must be considered but do not trust this alone. Courts of law feel strongly about this and do all that they can to observe the witness in person.

Therefore, in order to prepare ourselves to speak effectively on controversial issues, we must cultivate habits which allow us to appear at ease with others. A clear conscience is one of the most effective weapons here. Practice in speaking before groups and in conversation will help us gain the experience to show confidence in such situations. As Aristotle pointed out, "truth is stronger than falsehood, but falsehood has the best defenders." You may be sure that the devil's advocates will appear as honest as possible; your job is both to appear and to be honest.

C. Reputation: Ned's reputation for honesty and integrity will also play a part in John's decision. Has Ned been involved in trouble before? Was Ned ever observed cheating on a test in class? Did Ned ever hand in an experiment in chemistry that he had copied from someone else?

The speaker on controversial issues must therefore not have any "blot" on his character. He must be as blameless as Robert E. Lee and as virtuous as George Washington. Such an untarnished reputation requires constant vigilance. Not even the slightest slips can be tolerated. If you are tempted to make up an excuse as to why you bought your ticket to the dance from Lucy instead of Helen, don't do it; if you are called safe at third base when you know you failed to touch base, tell the umpire. You may get a momentary reputation for being a "wet blanket", but no one will ever accuse you of being dishonest.

D. Motive: John must also consider if there is any good reason why Ned would have taken the test. On this point John must realize that all of the students interviewed had the same possible motive-to raise their grades. John must go deeper than that. Did Ned have a stronger motive than the others? What is Ned's standing in the class? Does someone else need to raise his grade to stay on the honor roll, to remain eligible for some sport?

Beware of speaking on subjects where your theme relates to your own personal gain.

The speaker on controversial issues will suffer if he appears to wish an audience to adopt his suggestions for his own profit. Many performers, such as Jerry Lewis, conduct TV Marathons (or telethons) to raise funds for charitable causes and organizations. These persons are highly respected because they gain nothing from these ordeals for themselves. Their work and interest is for the betterment of others.

E. Opportunity: Did Ned actually have the opportunity to take the test? Was he in the building during the time in question? Suppose Ned tells the council that he worked in the chemistry laboratory next door to Mr. Jenkins' office all afternoon, and, moreover, that he was alone most of the time. This would certainly cause John to admit that Ned could have done it.

A speaker must be careful not to place himself in compromising positions. Sometimes we cannot help ourselves, because we do not foresee the danger, but other times we can.

When John is planning a speech on controversial material, he will want to remember that he will first wish to list the "facts" that he has at his disposal, and then use all five of the factors given above to verify the "opinions" available; namely, accuracy, appearance, reputation, motive, and opportunity.

When he presents his material, he should be consistent and detailed, to consider how well his personal actions during the speech will lend belief to what he is proposing, to consider his reputation, his motives, and his own opportunity to participate.

Now that we have attempted to get as close to the truth as possible by verifying the facts and opinions we have collected, we must next work to reach a decision by inferring or reasoning from these verified observations.

2. From the Known to the Unknown by INDUCTION

We observe with our senses, and from these observations, we go from the known to the unknown. In order to prove this, let us look at some examples.

A child puts its finger on the hot stove, and experiences pain. A second time the child puts its finger on the hot stove, and experiences pain. The child makes a quick induction. He goes from the known (pain of two burns) to the unknown (additional fingers on hot stove will result in similar burns).

The Bronx Zoo in New York City recently acquired three "Roosevelt Elk". According to the New York Times, these elk, named for Theodore Roosevelt, are found only in Hum-bolt County, California. How did the trappers know that the animals were really Roosevelt elk? Well, the trappers had observed many of the Roosevelt elk in the park. From these observations, or examples, they had gone from the known (what they saw each time they viewed an elk) to the unknown (Roosevelt elk are elk that may weigh up to 1,000 pounds, the males grow antlers in the fall and winter, etc.).

What examples do we have in Ned's case which will allow us to induce?

The diagram lists the examples given John by which he reached the conclusion that Ned did not take the chemistry test. The diagram lists three possible examples of accuracy. One of these, however, was stricken, as lacking in verification. John had two examples of Ned's personal actions which he verified, four examples from his reputation, one example of motive, and three examples of opportunity. From the verified examples, John reached the conclusion that Ned was innocent.

DID NED TAKE THE CHEMISTRY TEST? KNOWN- Examples which have been: seen, heard smelled, touched or tasted. Examples of: Personal Accuracy Action Reputation example example example example example example example example Motive Opportunity example example example example UNKNOWN- Conclusion drawn from examples: NED DID NOT TAKE THE CHEMISTRY TEST.

To make it clearer, let us take "reputation" and see what these four examples might consist of. Suppose four teachers in the school met with the council and voiced their opinions concerning Ned's trustworthiness. These four opinions would be four examples. The example which John struck out and did not verify under "personal actions" might have been some nervousness on the part of Ned during the interview. Several witnesses said Ned was always restless when questioned, and so John struck this example as having no probative value (that is, as being of no use in helping to decide Ned's guilt).

Going by example from the known to the unknown (or inducing) is common practice for everyone. Without induction, you would be afraid to go down steps this afternoon, because it is only the example of your success in going down the steps in the past that makes you predict that you can do it again this afternoon. The number of examples we need to draw a reasonable conclusion about the unknown varies widely. We do not need to have many examples of the deaths of paratroopers whose parachutes failed to open to conclude that any paratrooper whose parachute fails to open will be killed. But it took thousands upon thousands of examples of airplane flights, railroad runs, automobile trips, and bus schedules, to gain data on comparative transportation.

Induction is often called "the scientific method". It is the basis on which our modern civilization is built.

Analogy

The analogy is a particular use of the example in induction. Suppose you have tried to start your gasoline lawn mower without success and discover that it is out of gas. You take your gas can, hop on a motor scooter to go to the service station, but the scooter will not start. What pops into your mind? It's out of gas! You have reasoned from analogy. Your reasoning might go this way:

Known	Example:	Example:
	no gas in lawn mower	no gas in scooter
ANALOGOUS TO
Unknown	All gasoline lawn mowers are machines that need that need gasoline to run.	All scooters are gasoline to run.

Because you knew how to go from the known to the unknown with the gasoline lawn mower, you knew how to go from the known to the unknown with the gasoline motor scooter, because, as you reasoned, one situation was similar, or analogous, to the other.

Let us now see how a person could use this method of reasoning to reach a conclusion in a situation that cannot be directly verified.

A flight instructor found that his squadron had received a new type of airplane with which he was relatively unfamiliar. During take-off one morning the cockpit filled with smoke just as the plane was about to leave the runway. The instructor and his student both assumed that the plane was on fire and set it down immediately. The plane was towed back to the hangar and the "fire" investigated. The maintenance crew discovered that the smoke came from a few drops of kerosene that had been left in the cabin heater during cleaning. The following month, when the cockpit of another plane filled with smoke at the time of take-off, the flight instructor quickly shut off the cabin heater, opened an air duct, and continued with the flight lesson.

An analogy, therefore, consists of a likeness between two things, so that knowledge of one thing will result in knowledge of the other. Because the flight instructor had had experience with one emergency, he was able to cope with a second.

Often we say that the likeness between the two things should not so much consist of a resemblance between the things themselves, but a resemblance of their attributes or qualities. To illustrate, a comedian may say that a woman's mind is like (is analogous to) a washing machine. Here there is no resemblance between the woman's mind and the washing machine, but there is the resemblance that the comedian attempts to show: (a) that both are trying to do work, (b) that when you put things in both (ideas in one, clothes in the other), they are churned around and come out disorganised.

Actually, then, we have two types of analogies: literal, in which the processes compared are different but the attributes are similar. All metaphors and similes are figurative analogies.

The reliability of the conclusions drawn from reasoning from analogy depends upon the degree of similarity of the two situations.

3. From the Known to the Unknown by DEDUCTION

The results of induction give us a conclusion which we call a generality. By applying these generalities to specific situations, we progress from the generality known to the specific unknown, by a second process which we call deduction.

Let us put this generality into a diagram and then deduct.

Example Example Example Example

1st braggart 2nd braggart 3rd braggart 4th braggart

Generality: 1. All people who brag are people whom I dislike.

2. Mary's brother, whom I met tonight, is a person who brags.

3. Therefore, Mary's brother is a person whom I dislike.

Your experience with people who brag may have been unfortunate. Most of the braggarts with whom you have come in contact have been persons whom you dislike. Therefore, you have induced from your examples, drawing the generality (or conclusion), that all people who brag are people whom you dislike.

Notice that the deduction consists of three steps:

1. (major premise) The generality.
2. (minor premise) Placing a specific person, place, or thing into the subject of the generality. (Here we put Mary's brother into the category of people who brag.)
3. (conclusion) Placing a specific person, place or thing into the predicate of the generality. (Here we put Mary's brother into the category of people whom you dislike.)

The Generality (or Major Premise)

We use deduction every day of our lives. If it were not for our ability to use generalities to go from the known to the unknown, we would find the world too complicated. Witness the following generalities that we all use every day: all drivers who do not stop their cars at railroad crossing are drivers who risk death; all people whose body temperature is above 98.6 F are people who are ill; 80% of all dogs have fleas.

Notice that these generalities all have certain things in common:

(1) The subject of the generality forms a category: a category for drivers, a category for people with fever, or a category for dogs.

(2) This subject category is qualified by an adjective, telling how many of this category are to be involved in the predicate: all, or 80%.

(3) The subject is linked to the predicate by "is" or "are".

(4) The predicate forms another category, into which all, or none of the subject category is placed: All dogs are dogs who have fleas. Some dogs are dogs who have fleas. No dogs are dogs who have fleas.

The Minor Premise

The minor premise takes a specific person, place or thing (or group of persons, places, or things) and puts them into the subject category of the generality.

Generality: ALL DRIVERS WHO DO NOT STOP

THEIR CARS AT RAILROAD CROSSINGS are drivers who risk death.

Minor Premise: Jerry is A DRIVER WHO DOES NOT STOP AT RAILROAD CROSSINGS.

Generality: ALL PEOPLE WHOSE BODY TEMPERATURE IS ABOVE 98.6 F. are people who are ill.

Minor Premise: Nancy is a girl who has a BODY TEMPERATURE ABOVE 98.6 F.

Generality: 80% OF ALL DOGS have fleas.

Minor Premise: Rudolfo is A DOG who has fleas.

Notice that in each minor premise, a specific person, place, or thing (Jerry, Nancy, and Rudolfo) has been placed into the subject category (of drivers who risk death, or of persons who are ill, or of dogs who have fleas).

The Conclusion

The conclusion, or third step in deduction, takes the same specific person, place, or thing mentioned as the subject of the minor premise and puts it into the predicate category of the generality.

Generality: ALL DRIVERS WHO DO NOT STOP THEIR CARS AT RAILROAD CROSSINGS are drivers who risk death.

Minor Premise: Jerry is A DRIVER WHO DOES NOT STOP AT RAILROAD CROSSINGS.

Conclusion: Jerry is a driver who risks death.

Generality: ALL PEOPLE WHOSE BODY TEMPERATURE IS ABOVE 98.6 F are people who are ill.

Minor Premise: Nancy is a girl who has A BODY TEMPERATURE ABOVE 98.6 F.

Conclusion: Nancy is a person who is ill.

Generality: 80% OF ALL DOGS have fleas.

Minor Premise: Rudolfo is A DOG who has fleas.

Conclusion: Rudolfo is among the 80% of dogs who have fleas.

Note that if the adjective modifying the subject of the generality is less than 100% (or all), the adjective must reappear as a modifier of the subject of the conclusion (as the 80% modified Rudolfo in the last example).

Types of Deductive Reasoning

Cause-to-Effect: Thinkers have long recognized that understanding why something has happened is a giant stride toward making it happen again or toward preventing it from happening again, whichever is desirable. If we know why something has happened in the past, we can better predict under what conditions it may happen in the future.

For example, Fred may observe that whenever the little neighbor boy comes over to play with his younger sister, Fred's dog growls and snarls. This is an effect. What has caused it? Fred notices that when no one is around, the little boy pulls the dog's tail. Quickly, he makes a cause-to-effect relationship. The cause: tormenting the dog. The effect: fear, snarling, and growling by the dog. Fred then establishes a generality:

My dog Rover, when tormented by the neighbor boy, is a dog which growls and snarls.

Establishing this cause-to-effect relationship relieves Fred's mind. He no longer has to worry that his dog is becoming mean and is likely to bite without provocation.

So far, our cause-to-effect reasoning has been inductive. We went from the examples of the tormenting to the generality, My dog Rover, when tormented by the neighbor boy, is a dog who growls and snarls. But, when Fred's generalization is put to use, the reasoning becomes deductive. Some cousins of Fred's come for a visit, among them a small boy. Fred says to the small cousin, "Don't torment Rover or he'll snarl and growl." What Fred has done looks like this:

My dog Rover, when tormented, is a dog who growls and snarls.

My visiting cousin may torment Roger. Therefore, my visiting cousin may make Rover a dog who growls and snarls.

We learn many things as a child through repeating cause-to-effect relationships. Pulling a dog's tail makes him angry; dropping a glass on a hard surface causes it to break; exertion causes fatigue. How many times an act has to be repeated before an individual recognizes the causal relation varies with each of us. The reason for Rover's growls and snarls was a generalization established by Fred from several examples or experiences in which he observed what the neighbor boy did to Rover and how Rover reacted.

When a mother puts the dog out of a child's reach, or gives the baby a plastic cup instead of a glass, she is interfering with a causal relation by preventing or removing the cause, thus attempting to avoid the effect. She is saying, "I don't want the dog to bite the child, and if I can remove the source of the dog's anger, he will not bite." So, she prevents the dog's tail from being pulled by separating the child and the dog.

Causal relationship, therefore, has both an inductive and a deductive component. As usual, we establish the generality through induction by showing that event "A" results in event "B"; then, we use this generality to predict what will happen under other A-B conditions. We say that the arrival of the new cousin might result in another A-B (child tormenting dog) situation. We use our reasoning powers to avoid unpleasantness, pain, and suffering.

Signs: A "sign" is simply a type of cause-to-effect relationship of which we are very sure. A robin is a "sign" of spring; wealth is a "sign" of prosperity; a black armband is a "sign" of sorrow. All of these are meaningful only because the two events (the cause and the effect) always appear together. Accepting the presence of the second when we see only the first is reasoning from "sign". We say such things as, "Anyone who has a swimming pool must be rich!" We have induced by seeing the swimming pool and drawing the generality that, All persons who own swimming pools are persons who are rich. Then we deduct when we visit the house of a friend and see a swimming pool being built. Immediately, we say to ourselves, All persons who own swimming pools are persons who are rich; these people will own one; therefore, these people must be rich.

The common term "sign" includes road signs, signals, and the like. They are inductions of the future. When we have seen several signs that lead us to the same acceptable conclusion, we have established a generalization inductively. We say in all situations in which we see a sign indicating a curve to the right in the road, that the road will curve to the right. When we see such a sign and then decide to act in a manner consistent with the generalization, we are reasoning by sign.

But, how quickly we would change our generality if a sign pointing to a right turn led us astray and caused us to run into the ditch! Our generality would immediately be subject to revision. A sign, therefore, is a generalization of which we are very certain.

There is a great deal of power in being able to go from the known to the unknown by the use of inductive and deductive reasoning. Although it sometimes seems a complicated process and takes time to learn, the effort is well worth while.

Induction goes from the known to the unknown by observing examples (smelling, touching, tasting, feeling, or seeing examples) and drawing a generality from the observation.

The known consists of the examples.

The unknown which is reached is the generality.

Deduction goes from the known to the unknown by taking a generality and applying it to a specific person, place, or thing.

The known is the generality which we have learned from induction.

The unknown is how this generality affects the specific person, place, or thing we are talking about.

The exercises at the end of this chapter should help you to sharpen your thinking on controversial materials.

4. Values in CONTROVERSIAL MATERIAL

Now that you have verified the information and have used it to reason inductively and deductively, you have been able to establish a conclusion.

Let us imagine that the honor council reached an agreement that Joe Sanders was the guilty student. But, before the council can agree on the nature and amount of punishment, it must decide the degree of seriousness of the act. This is another way of asking the question, "How bad a thing did Joe do?" This is a question of value.

Determining what we believe concerning values is one of the most important but difficult problems we have as speakers. It is an important problem because sound recommendations for action depend on judgments of value. It is a difficult problem because values are relative. One society frowns upon anyone who charges interest for a loan of money; another society accepts a reasonable charge of interest without concern. In preparing for a speech we run into value judgments constantly, many of which are conflicting and contradictory. How can we determine what to believe concerning values? Let us see how John could go about determining the seriousness of Joe's act.

Accepted Standards

All his life John has been taught ethical principles. For example, his church tells him, Thou Shall Not Steal. Here is a clear enough commandment to John to instruct him that the person who took the test has committed a wrong.

John may also rely on standards already set up by the honor council itself. If cases like this have come up and have been decided before, John may judge this case as cases in the past were judged. This means of judging acts in the field of law is called "ruling by precedent." As a result of centuries of human experience, the acts of other men have established values which condemn and which praise.

Another standard involves the attitude of society. What do most people think about such an act? Is this a commonly accepted, harmless violation of regulations? Or, is it something which society would hesitate to see widespread? How do the teachers, parents, and classmates regard the taking of a test? Although agreement among people as to values do not establish them, public opinion must be considered in assessing values. Undoubtedly, the Supreme Court of the United States in recent years has taken into consideration the consensus of world opinion in rendering some of its interpretations of our Constitution.

How urgent are laws governing mercy killing? How great a crime against society is narcotic peddling? How severe a crime is armed robbery? How important is it to make the honor roll? How great a wrong has Joe committed? These are all questions of value. These are the items which confront the speaker and about which he must make a decision.

5. Determining Action

The honor council has performed the first three steps in considering and presenting the controversial subject of the disappearance of the test from the desk of the chemistry teacher:

Step One: The Council verified the opinions involved.

Step Two: The Council reasoned from those opinions that Joe Sanders took the test.

Step Three: The Council decided how severely Joe had violated the laws of society.

Now the honor council must take
Step Four: Determine Action. What punishment should Joe be given? It is this question that each speaker attempts to answer when he advocates his ideas.

The problem of what action to take is usually a difficult one. Although our religious codes are clear in distinguishing good from bad, they do not always tell us just what specific action to take. It may be that the punishment given to past offenders who have appeared before the honor council will help decide the degree of punishment. This is an extension of the "ruling by precedent" that was discussed under Step Three. If the honor council has handled many cases of this kind, the seriousness of Joe's offense may be easily determined. If not, then the council must look elsewhere for a means of reaching its conclusion.

In any event, members of the council should ask themselves what they want the disciplinary action to do.

If the aim of the council is to prevent Joe from repeating his action, then, the punishment for Joe could range from expelling him from school (a severe punishment), to scheduling an appointment for him with the principal (a mild punishment).

If the aim of the council is to deter other students from attempting similar acts, they must consider how the other students in the school will react to whatever punishment is given to Joe. If the punishment is too mild, it may encourage others to similar acts with the confidence that not much harm can come to them; if the punishment is too severe, it may invoke sympathy for Joe and make him something of a hero.

Similar decisions must be reached in all controversial situations. If you are pleading for new uniforms for the band, you must decide whether to hope to replace only those in bad repair or whether to seek all new uniforms. If you are appearing before the school board to request that courses in Russian be introduced into your school curriculum, you must decide on whether to ask for non-credit, optional work, or for a two-year, credit, required course for college preparatory students.

How much? How many? How soon? For how long? Where? These are among the questions that must be answered by the speaker in determining action.

Summary

When attempting to present controversial issues to others in conversation, in discussion, in debate, or in public speaking, it is necessary to consider four steps in formulating your ideas:

Step One: Verify Your Facts and Opinions. Make certain that the subject matter you are using for your decision is as accurate as possible.

Step Two: Reason from Your Verified Facts and Opinions. Consider the examples you have and draw generalities from them by induction. Then take the generalities you have drawn from induction and reach a specific conclusion about a person, place, or thing through deduction.

Step Three: Decide How Important the Conclusion Is That You Have Reached. Consider the value of what you have discovered. Ask yourself, "What is the nature of the conclusion that I have reached?"

Step Four: Determine What Course of Action You Should Advocate. Consider the goals that you hope your decision will accomplish. Then advocate a program to reach those goals.

Exercises

1. Make a list of ten events that you would classify as "facts". Remember that the "fact" is defined here as an event that is generally observed.

2. Write an essay on your ability to present materials in such a manner that makes their truthfulness or verification stand out. Divide your essay into five parts:

a. How accurately do you speak? Do you give details? Are you specific? Do you repeat rumors or gossip?

b. Do you appear sufficiently at ease with others? Are you likely to "appear" worthy of belief?

c. Is your reputation such that people tend to believe what you say? Do you avoid doing anything or saying anything that would make people doubt you? Do you try, with tact and modesty, to be completely honest at every opportunity?

d. Do you avoid opening yourself to suspicion? Are you careful to protect yourself from caring too much about grades, or about money, or about having a car, or about making the team, so that others can never say of you: "He would do anything to make all 'A's,'" or "He would give his eye-teeth to make the varsity squad."

e. Do you avoid putting yourself in compromising positions? Do you think before you enter places clearly marked "out-of-bounds" to you? Are you careful to avoid putting yourself in such a place where you would have the opportunity to do wrong?

3. Attend a trial at the local courtroom. Observe the witnesses. Write an essay, analyzing the accuracy, appearance, reputation, motives, and opportunities of the witnesses.

4. Read a magazine article on any one of the following subjects:

The Fluoridation of Drinking Water Danger of Narcotics The Honor System for the High School Voting Privileges for Eighteen-Year-Olds Penalties for Reckless Driving

The Farm Price-Support Program

The Foreign Aid Program of the United States

Answer the following questions concerning the article:

a. Is the article consistent? Does it seem to give a unified approach?

b. Is the article specific, or does it depend upon generalities and wide-sweeping statements?

c. Does the appearance of the article help make you believe what it has to say? If there are pictures, do they help convince you? Is the print easily readable?

d. How excellent are the reputations of the author of the article and the magazine in which the article appears?

e. Does the author have any selfish reason for writing the article? Why did the magazine publish the article?

5. Ask 25 people any one of the following questions:

Do you prefer girls to wear long or short hair?

Which do you think is the more popular sport in the United States, football or baseball?

Are you in favor of, or opposed to, the Amendment to the Constitution limiting the President to two terms?

Which offers better entertainment, motion pictures or television?

Should eighteen-year-olds be permitted to vote?

Consider each answer as an example. Divide the answers into groups, following the example shown below. Then draw a generality from your examples. Complete the exercise by deducting.

Question asked: Do you think that the practice of "going steady" should be encouraged among high school students?

Examples: Yes: 6 Undecided: 2 No: 17

Generality:

1. 17 out of 25 people are people who are opposed to "going steady" in high school.
2. Frank Harris is a person.
3. Therefore, the chances are 17 out of 25 that Frank Harris is a person who is opposed to "going steady" in high school.

It may be better to limit the people you ask to a certain category of persons. For example, you might ask only men between the ages of 16 and 25 whether they prefer girls with long hair or short hair. Or you might limit your inquiries about the Amendment to our Constitution to your teachers, or to high school seniors, or to secretaries. If the questioner in our example had done this, his generality might have read: 17 out of 25 high school seniors are people who are opposed to "going steady" in high school, or 17 out of every 25 mothers of girls who are in high school are persons who are opposed to their daughters "going steady" in high school.

6. Take any superstition. Phrase it in the form of a generality. Then use it to fill in the blanks below:

is 1. GENERALITY are (Major Premise) (subject category) (predicate category) is 2. Minor premise are (name of a specific per- (subject category) son, place, or thing) is 3. Conclusion are (name of a specific per- (predicate category) son, place, or thing)

Below are several generalities properly formed from superstitions:

All persons who break mirrors are persons who are subject to 7 years of bad luck. All people who walk under ladders are people who will have bad luck. All persons who carry a rabbit's foot are people who have good luck.

7. Write a short essay on how serious you consider any one of the following acts:

The Selling of Narcotics to Teenagers

Violating the Football Training Regulation against Smoking Performing Mercy-Killing on a Hopeless Cancer Patient Failing to Turn in a Wallet to the Lost-and-Found Gossiping about a Friend

8. What punishment would you recommend for each act?

9. Look for an advertisement in a magazine which uses the example (or inductive method) to reason about a product. Mount the advertisement on a sheet of paper, and on the back of the paper give the following information:

a. the number and type of examples used.

b. the generality drawn from the examples.

Your paper should appear similar to the following example.

ANALYSIS FORM FOR INDUCTIVE' REASONING IN ADVERTISING NAME OF COMPANY OR PRODUCT: Spencer Insurance Company LOCATION OF AD: Saturday Evening Post EXAMPLE OF AD: Picture of boy falling off a tractor and story of Case #2468322 of an accident where Spencer Insurance paid the medical expenses. GENERALITY: All intelligent farmers are farmers -who are protected by Spencer Hospital Insurance.

10. Prepare a three-minute speech to give to the class in which you report how you reasoned by induction and how you reasoned by deduction. First, choose something that you would like to investigate; second, get 25 samples pertinent to your investigation; third, draw a generality from your samples; fourth, deduct from your generality, applying your findings to a specific person, place, or thing. As you give your speech, write on the blackboard your question, one or more of your examples, your generality, and your deduction.

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here...