112. Refutation.

Argumentation may be destructive as well as constructive. That is, its aim may be to prove a proposition false equally as well as to prove it true. Argumentation of this kind, especially that which consists in showing that there is something wrong with an opponent's conclusions, is usually called refutation.

There is nothing specifically distinct in the methods employed by refutation. The same process used in proving a proposition may be used in disproving it, provided different premises or different arguments are resorted to. Perhaps the most distinct, as it certainly is one of the favorite, methods of refuting an opponent's arguments is to show that they are inconsistent with themselves, or lead to manifest absurdities when carried to their logical conclusion.

A passage from Webster's Reply to Hayne well illustrates the method. Senator Hayne, with others of his party, contended that "in case of a plain, palpable violation of the Constitution by the general government, a State may interpose; and that this interposition is constitutional." In the course of his reply, Webster cited the tariff of 1828 and observed as follows:

The tariff is a usurpation; it is a dangerous usurpation; it is a palpable usurpation; it is a deliberate usurpation. It is such a usurpation, therefore, as calls upon the States to exercise their right of interference. Here is a case, then, within the gentleman's principles. It is a case for action. The

1 See Webster's Great Speeches, p. 256.

Constitution is plainly, dangerously, palpably, and deliberately violated; and the States must interpose their own authority to arrest the law. Let us suppose the State of South Carolina to express this same opinion, by the voice of her legislature. That would be very imposing; but what then? Is the voice of one State conclusive? It so happens that, at the very moment when South Carolina resolves that the tariff laws are unconstitutional, Pennsylvania and Kentucky resolve exactly the reverse. They hold those laws to be both highly proper and strictly constitutional. And now, Sir, how does the honorable member propose to deal with this case? How does he relieve us from this difficulty, upon any principle of his? His construction gets us into it; how does he propose to get us out?

In Carolina, the tariff is a palpable, deliberate usurpation; Carolina, therefore, may nullify it, and refuse to pay the duties. In Pennsylvania, it is both clearly constitutional and highly expedient; and there the duties are to be paid. And yet we live under a government of uniform laws, and under a Constitution too, which contains an express provision, as it happens, that all duties shall be equal in all the States. not this approach absurdity?

Does

113. Fallacies. To reason soundly and logically one must not only arrive at right conclusions, but arrive at them in right ways. A fallacy, or mistake in the reasoning, invalidates, of course, the conclusion depending upon it.

Fallacies may take various forms. Most common, perhaps, are the following: (a) the fallacy of the ambiguous term, (b) the fallacy of begging the question, (c) the fallacy of arguing beside the point, and (d) the fallacy of hasty generalization.

(a.) The fallacy of the ambiguous term. This consists in the use of a general term in one sense in the premises and in another in the conclusion. It is a very common and often a very subtle fallacy, inasmuch as the ambiguity not infrequently lends itself readily to concealment. Such a flagrant use of the ambiguous term as is involved in the following, however, would deceive no one:

The study of literature is a moral virtue, because the study of literature is humanity, and humanity is a moral virtue.

(b.) The fallacy of begging the question. This consists in taking for granted something that has to be proved. The most common form in which it occurs is in the use of what are called questionbegging epithets. Thus if, in attacking the acts or policies of a political opponent, we begin by calling them "nefarious" or "unstatesmanlike" and then proceed to condemn them as nefarious or unstatesmanlike, we obviously assume what we started out to prove. Beware of the use of the question-begging epithet.

(c.) The fallacy of arguing beside the point. — It sometimes happens that, either by accident or design, a disputant, finding it hard to prove the proposition he started with, proves some other proposition very much like it and assumes that this proposition is virtually the same as that he wished to prove. In such a case, he is said to argue beside the point, or ignore the point at issue.

This con

(d.) The fallacy of hasty generalization. sists in generalizing on too narrow a basis of fact. Many people, observing that a phenomenon occurs a number of times under given conditions, are prone to leap to the conclusion at once and without further investigation that it will always occur under those conditions. Hasty generalization of this kind constitutes the great danger in the inductive method of reasoning, and should be especially guarded against.

EXERCISES

1. Comment upon the validity of the following syllogisms: a. All valid syllogisms have three terms. This syllogism has three terms. Therefore this syllogism is valid.

b. To take profit is to take advantage.

But to take advantage of any one is wrong.
Therefore to take profit is wrong.

c. He who is content with what he has is truly rich.
No envious man is content with what he has.
No envious man, therefore, is truly rich.

d. If this candidate used money to secure his elec-
tion, he deserved defeat.

But he did not use money for this purpose.
Therefore he did not deserve defeat.

e. Whatever abridges liberty abridges happiness.
But law abridges liberty.

Therefore law abridges happiness.

f. No sensible man is indifferent to money.
This man is not indifferent to money.
Therefore he is a sensible man.

2. Is the reasoning in the following sound?

a.

'He has no appreciation of beauty, for he has no taste for pictures."

b. "War is a blessing, not an evil.

nation that has ever become
blood-letting."

Show me the

great without

c. "No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable except that each person, as far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness. . . . Each person's happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of persons."

3. How would you meet the following line of argument? "Restrictive laws always land us in this dilemma: either you admit that they produce scarcity, or you do not. If you admit it, you avow by the admission that you inflict on the people all the injury in your power. If you do not admit it, you deny having restricted supply and raised prices, and consequently you deny having favored the producer."

SUGGESTED SUBJECTS FOR THEMES

1. Is it advisable for a man to try to work his way through college?

2. Is the awarding of prizes or medals for excellence in studies conducive to good scholarship?

3. Should gymnastics be compulsory at college?

4. Should college authorities allow students to manage their sports as they see fit?