A Rhetoric of Argument

Contents
Foreword
Acknowledgments
Instructor's Introduction: What Kind of Argument
Text Is This?
1 Motives for Argument
Practical Consequences 6
Truth Without Apparent
Consequences 7
Argument from Ego 8
What We Do Not Argue About

Facts 9
Demonstrating Facts 12
For You to Analyze
Matters of Personal Taste 16
What, Then, Is Argument?
For You to Write 27
PART ONE WHAT IS IT?

3
Claims About the Nature of Things

The Basic Tactic: Support by Examples 34
Analyze 38
For You to Write 40
For You to
vii
xi
iv
CONTENTS
Analyzing Statements About the Nature of Things
41
Subjects 4 1
How Do Universals Appear in Written
Argument? 50
Set Making in the Subject 51
For You to
For You to Write 57
Write 52
Predicates 53
The Essential Definition

58
When the Definition Does Not Have to Appear 59
For You
to Write 62
When the Definition Must Appear in Some
Form 62
For You to Write 67
Where to Put the
Definition 68
For You to Analyze 71
For You to
Write 73
How to Define
74
The Synonym 74
The GenudDifference Definition 76
Definition by Example 81
Etymological Definition 82
Genetic or Historical Definition 84
Negative Definition 85
Figurative Definition 87
Operational Definition 88
Supporting the Definition Itself 91
How Arguments About
93
For You to
the Nature of Things Can Go Wrong
Analyze 94
"Is fhe Dismal Science Really a Science?" by Herbert
Sfein 97
"Rereading 'Robinson Crusoe': The Original Nonficfion Nourl,
by Diana Loerrher Pazicky 99
" ' A 1 /olson' in fhe Philippines," by
Sfanley Karnow 100
For You to Write 103
"
7 More Arguments About the Nature of Things:
Comparisons and Disjunctions
107
What Things Are Like: Comparisons 107
Disjunctions 121
"Washington vs. New York, by Mickey
Kaus ef al. 126
"
Verification in Argument
134
The Brain Scan 135

How to Verify a Claim in an
Argument 137
For You to
Write 144
PART TWO HOW DID IT GET

THAT WAY?
9 The Kinds of Causes
Set I: Conditions, Influences, and Precipitating Causes
149
CONTENTS
Set 2: Proximate and Remote Causes 151

Set 3: Necessary
and Sufficient Causes 153
Other Kinds of Causes 156
The Case of George 161
Conclusions from George's Case:
The Two Things Causal Argument Can Do 167
For You to
'Ijptliner Crew Blamed for Sun Diego Crash," by Mark
Analyze 168
Stevens 169
10 The Tactics of Causal Argument
174
174
Agency: Our Basic Assumption About What Causes What

Tactics for Supporting a Causal Relationship 177
Other
Rhetorically Effective Methods 186
How Causal Arguments
Can Go Wrong: Common Difficulties in Causal Argument 191
'SA T Scores-How fo Stop fhe Drop, by Jane Whitbread 192
"The
McEvedy
196
For
You
to
Write
198
Bubonic Plague," by Colin
"
Precision and Prediction
201
Claims with Causal Verbs 201
The Causal Assertion as a
Claim About the Nature of Things 203
Sign Arguments 204
If-Then Causal Statements 207
Fact-Plus-Cause
Statements 208
Predictions 209
For You to
Analyze 213
'For Health and for Wealth," by Kenneth R. Sheefs with
Robert F. Black 213
"Hybrid Aircraft," by Thomas Kiely 216
PART THREE IS IT GOOD OR BAD?

Evaluation
223
Evaluation Is Not a Matter of Taste 224

Supporting the
Criteria with a Specific Audience in Mind 224
Evaluating
Things 226
Evaluating People 234
Evaluating Events and
Actions 235
Evaluating Abstractions 239
Weighting
Criteria 240
Weighting Values: Ethical Argument 241
Comparative Evaluations 243
How Evaluations Can Go
'Pollution Is Good for
Wrong 246
You, by Philip W . West 247
'Imerican Made: The 1958 Cadillac,
by Olivier Bernier 249
"The Dignity of Nursing," by George F.
Will 250
"Will the Weather Channel Save America?" by James
Gorman 252
'Founding Father," by Hugh Lloyd-Jones 255
For
You to Write 259
"
"
vi
CONTENTS
PART FOUR WHAT SHOULD WE DO

ABOUT IT?
263
13 The Proposal: Arguing About What Should Be Done
265
Kinds of Proposals 266

The Parts of the Full Proposal 267
Preliminary Arguments 267
Proposal Statement 275
Supporting Arguments 278
Feasibility: "It Can Be
Done" 281
How Proposals Can Go Wrong 290
For You
to Analyze 291
'Put Thiamine in Liquor," by Brandon
Centerwall 291
"Continuing Ed for Jocks," by Steve Robinson 294
"The Greenhouse Effect? Real Enough" 296
"The Only Fair W a y for
Elite Colleges to Choose Their Freshman Classes Is by Random Selection," by
James W . Jump 297
PART FIVE WHAT EVERY ARGUMENT

NEEDS
14
305
The Indispensable Refutation
307
Refutation 307
Building Arguments with Refutation in
Mind 308
How Explicit Should Refutation Be? 310
The
Argument That Is Wholly Refutation 311
Parts of a
Refutation 313
For You to Analyze or Write About 317
'Excerpts from Justices ' Opinions on Searches of Curbside Trash by
Police" 317
'Tnduring Interest Puts a True Classic on the List, by
Wayne C. Boofh 321
"A Canon Must Include Works of Many
Cultures, by David Lloyd 322
"David Lloyd Responds to Wayne
Booth . . .
324
': . . Wayne Booth Responds to David Lloyd" 324
"Teach the Debate about the Canon," by Gerald Gruff 325
"
"
"
15 Accommodation
328
Telling the Audience About Itself 329

Building Author
Credibility: Projecting a Good Picture of Yourself 331
Choosing a Voice 332
For You
to Write 351
Virtue in Argument 351
Emotion in
Argument 357
For You to
Write 364
Variation in Arrangement 365
For You to
Analyze 370
"What Next for the Boomers? The New Seriousness!" by
P. J. O'Rourke 370
'Z Plea for the Chimpanzees," by Jane
Goodall 373
Index
380
Foreword
Argument has been recognized as a kind of discourse ever since Aric-totle

lectured and Cicero wrote. For centuries teachers have offered guidance to
speakers and writers in composing various kinds of argument: One wellknown division of arguments recognizes "forensic" arguments, designed
to establish the truth or falsity of allegations about people's conduct and
the rightness of judgments about their behavior; "deliberative" arguments,
designed to establish the desirability of taking or not taking particular
actions; and "epideictic" arguments, designed to demonstrate that someone deserves honor and praise. All of these forms of argument have in
common the desire to induce belief, change attitudes, and bring about
action by means of discourse.
In some sense, all discourse (oral and written) is argument. When we
speak or write (even to ourselves in diaries and journals), we seek to draw
attention to what we say. Since attention usually is paid only to discourse
that listeners or readers find worth heeding, we try to lead our audience
to believe that what we say is justifiable-that there are data to support
it qr good reasons for saying it, and that we are reliable people who can
be trusted to locate the data and the reasons and to set them forth fairly.
For example, a friendly letter to our relatives, whether about the most
mundane details of our life or about a frightening emergency, asks them
to believe in the accuracy of what is being reported and, presumably, in
the continued sanity and affection of the writer. In asking readers or
vii
...
Vlll
. FOREWORD
listeners to pay attention, any writer or speaker implicitly promises discourse that will not only be credible but will also offer some benefit to the
audience In short, he or she is engaged in argument.
But when w e speak of argument as a form of writing, we usually are
not thinking of letters to relatives. Rather we are thinking of a kind of
discourse in which the writer is making an outright claim on readers'
judgment or belief-and may also be making a request for action. We are
thinking of discourse in which the writer alleges that specific events took
place, that those events had particular causes or consequences, that the
events are open to certain judgments or evaluations, that specific generalizations are tenable, and/or that definite actions should be taken-in circumstances where readers may be in doubt or may be unwilling to believe
what the writer claims. In short, a situation calls for arA7ument if what the
writer will assert is in doubf. If readers are neutral and cannot be expected
to believe immediately, unquestioningly, what is said, or if they may well
disagree with-that is, disbelieve-what the writer says, then argument is
called for. It is about argument in this sense, the sense in which Aristotle
and Cicero conceived it, that Jeanne Fahnestock and Marie Secor are writing in A Rhrtoric of Argunrmt.
Argument in this sense pervades our lives. We are asked to buy products, to give money, to participate in campaigns, to cast votes. Because
success in inducing readers or listeners to believe, and act upon, an argument often brings benefits to the arguer, it is clearly in the arguer's interest
to argue as imaginatively and as cogently as circumstances permit. But
because, as we know, the benefit to be gained from successful argument
is sometimes great enough to lead an arguer to be overly zealous in making
the case, readers have to be on guard against possible distortion. Furthermore, on many questions inviting judgment or action, the data permit
reasonable people to reach different conclusions; therefore, a liberal education in a democratic society, many teachers assert, should equip people to
recognize how an argument is built. W e must be on guard against acting
upon arguments that, in benefiting the arguer, may bring discomfort to us.
W e must be wary of believing too easily, judging too hastily, acting too
quickly on problematic issues.
Perhaps for these reasons, most chapters about argument in texts on
writing, and large parts of many textbooks on argument alone, emphasize
warnings about where arguments fail. They guide their users in searching
for what may reduce the credibility of arguments. They list by name large
numbers of fallacies, illustrating each and showing how each affects the
argument it enters. They point out how to locate hidden premises, or
assumptions, underlying the argument, so that readers can see the implications of denying the premises or of adopting others. They offer rudimentary introductions to propositional logic, sometimes with diagrams
showing interlocking circles to illustrate which propositions are, and which
FOREWORD
. ix
are not, valid. Sometimes they explore the distinctions between "contraries" and "contradictories" in an effort to help students recogni~ethe impact on an argument of its author's failure to differentiate the two. They
provide guidelines for the deconstruction of arguments, so that readers can
maintain the upper hand and avoid being taken in. In this approach,
indeed, many texts on writing seem internally inconsistent: When discussing most kinds of writing, the texts tell writers how to address readers,
while in discussing argument, they show writers-considered for the moment as readers-how
to test, and resist, others' writing. Despite the importance to students, professional people, and citizens of being able to
build arguments that avoid fallacious appeals, many such books about
writing offer at best sketchy advice on construrt~ngan argument.
In A Rhetoric of Argument, Fahnestock and Secor go a long way toward
filling the large vacuum left by these other books. While continuing to
offer help for readers in identifying the weakness of others' arguments and
in constructing refutations of those arguments, they focus attention principally on the task that a writer faces in building an argument. They recognize and demonstrate that many subjects are not matters for argument in
the narrower sense in which we use the term here. They recognize that
effective argument requires an urgent occasion--a reason w h y the writer/
speaker is moved to come before the reader/listener. They contend that the
construction of an argument begins with determining the issue-the question about which readers may not immediately believe what the writer
asserts-and continues with the identification of the kind of proposition
being argued. While recognizing that the writer's characterization of self
and the role or stance he/she takes in addressing the reader will affect the
audience's response, Fahnestock and Secor assert that the writer's first
responsibility is to define the issue and to recognize the kind of proposition
that must be discussed to advance the argument successfully.
Secor and Fahnestock's division of arguments into classes is lucid, neat,
and elegant. An argument, they contend, may take the form of claiming
that an object or event belongs to a specific "class" (and has the perties of
members of that class), or that an object or event has particular features.
O r it may take the form of a statement ahout causes or effects. Other apparently
distinct kinds of argument are in effect versions or combinations of these
two kinds, they believe. An rvaluation is either a claim that its subject must
meet specific standards in order to be said to belong to its group, or it is
a statement about the effects of that subject, about whether it produces
"desired" or undesirable results. O r an evaluation can be both. A proposal,
an assertion that some action should be taken, is a special form of causal
statement-one which predicts that certain recommended actions will improve the current state of affairs. Almost alone among texts on argument,
A Rhetoric of ArA~urnent focuses on the importance of such prediction and
connects it to causal analysis. (A prediction differs from an analysis of the
FOREWORD
causes of ongoing or completed events, of course, in being about probable

future events.) For each kind of argument, Fahnestock and Secor tell what
sorts of support are required, what the writer must demonstrate in order
to provide that support, what data writers can offer to accomplish those
demonstrations, and how writers can overcome difficulties in the construction of their arguments. Fahnestock and Secor also guide writers in anticipating the objections and points of disagreement that readers may bring
forward, and suggest how writers may respond, as they argue, to those
possible objections. The authors illustrate various kinds of argument, and
tactics for arguing, by analyzing representative passages of academic and
popular discourse, and by offering readers an abundance of passages that
readers can study on their own. Finally, the authors help their students to
experience, through numerous exercises drawn from a variety of fields, the
wide-ranging applicability of their teaching about argument.
It is by teaching the invention of arguments and the construction of
written argument, in fact, that Fahnestock and Secor offer their best advice
about reading and assessing arguments. By demonstrating what is needed
for effective argument, the authors help their students to recognize when
argument is not effective. By highlighting how words work-how they
may act upon a reader-the authors invite students to recognize where
vagueness, ambiguity, obscurity, and evasiveness in words and syntax can
weaken the credibility of argument. In so doing, they help their students
toward alert evaluative thinking (a term I would offer as a replacement for
"critical" thinking) about the arguments of others-and about their own.
They help students learn to pay thoughtful attention to what other writers,
and they themselves, say.
Probably at least half of the assignments in most writing courses invite
argument. Intuitively we recognize, in designing such assignments, the
importance of helping students learn to argue successfully-to win the
assent, or at least the respect, of their readers for the assertions and recommendations they advance. Such teaching prepares students not only for
writing in academic disciplines, but for their participation in civic and
professional worlds beyond the campus, where, in diverse settings, they
will need to use words to encourage beliefs and to bring about desired
actions. That is why all students-all readers-can profit from A Rhetoric
of Argumenf: it can help us become well-informed, fair-minded, attentive,
perceptive, and thus skillful participants in the dialogues by which defensible beliefs are reached and wise actions are decided upon.
We wish to express our gratitude to those colleagues who have helped and
encouraged us during the years of thought and work on this book. For the
stimulation of her knowledge, conversation, and company, Wilma R. Ebbitt, who brought the course in written argument into being at Penn State,
deserves special thanks. Betsy Brown gave us the support of her expertise
and humor, and readings of the manuscript by Douglas Park, John Harwood, and Paul Klemp at different stages of progress proved very helpful.
For his advice and criticism we wish to thank in particular Richard L.
Larson of Lehman College, City University of New York, who helped us
shape and refine the book and gave us confidence in our approach. We also
benefited greatly from the comments of John Auchard, University of
Maryland; Robert Connors, Louisiana State University; Lester Faigley,
University of Texas; Donovan Ochs, University of Iowa; Richard Hootman, University of Iowa; Robert Esch, University of Texas at El Paso;
Donald McQuade, Queen's College, City University of New York; and
George Yoos, St. Cloud University.
We owe a debt as well to Richard Garretson for his professional friendship, support, and guidance in the development of this book, and to David
C. Follmer, Irene Pavitt, Christine Pellicano, Elaine Romano, and Susan
Israel of Random House for seeing it through to completion. Donna Williams and Nancy Royer also aided us materially with their patient typing
and preparation of drafts.
xii
PERMISSIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For help in producing the second edition of A Rhetoric of Argument we

wish to thank the following people at Random House/McGraw-Hill:
Steven Pensinger, Tom Holton, our copy editor Debra Manette, our front
matter editor Caroline Izzo, and our permissions editor Barbara Hale. In
addition, we would like to thank our colleagues, who provided helpful
suggestions for improving the first edition: Dorothy Bankston, Louisiana
State University; Kate Begnal, Utah State University; Robert E. Land,
University of California-Irvine, and Jeanette Morgan, University of
Houston.
Finally, we wish to thank our husbands, Stephen Fahnestock and Robert Secor, who have done so much over the years to strengthen our skills
of argument.
Permissions
Acknowledgments
FROMROCHELLE
RILEY,
"Suspects Emerge in Fire Probe," The Washit~gtonPost, June
19, 1988. @ 1988 The Washington Post.
"JAPAN:
THECALLOF THE WILD,"from Newsweek. @ Newsweek, Inc. All rights
reserved. Reprinted by permission.
"ANOTHER
ONEBITESTHE DUST"is reprinted courtesy of Sports Illustrated. Pd. Time
Inc. All rights reserved.
FROMMILTON
MILLHAUSER,
excerpt from "In the Air." Copyright @ 1959 by
Wesleyan University. Reprinted from Just B~foreDarwin by permission of
Wesleyan University Press.
FROMBARBARA
TUCHMAN,
excerpt from A Distant Mirror: The Caiarnitous 14th
Century, by Barbara Tuchman. Copyright @ 1978 by Barbara Tuchman.
Reprinted by permission of Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
FROMJOHNHORGAN,
"Fractal Shorthand," in Sciet~tiJirAmerican, February 1988.
Copyright Pd. 1988 by Scientific American, Inc. All rights reserved.
FROMWILLIAM
CALDER,
excerpt from "The Kiwi," by William A. Calder 111.
Copyright @ 1978 by Scientific American, Inc. All rights reserved.
FROMHERBERT
STEIN,"1s the Dismal Science Really a Science?" Discowr,
November 1987. @ 1987 Discover Publications.
PAZICKY,
"The Original 'Nonfiction Novel,' " The Christian
FROMDIANELOERCHER
Science Mo~zitor, June 3, 1988. Reprinted with permission of the author.
FROMSTANLEY
KARNOW,
" 'A1 Jolson' In the Philippines," in The New York Times,
June 16, 1988. Copyright @ 1988 by The New York Times Company.
Reprinted by permission.
PERMISSIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
xiii
FROMBRUNO
BETTELHEIM,
The Informed Heart: Autonomy in a Mass Age. Reprinted
with permission of The Free Press, a Division of Macmillan, Inc. from The
Informed Heart: Autonomy in a Mass Age by Bruno Bettelheim. Copyright @
1960 by The Free Press, renewed 1988 by Bruno Bettelheim.
VS. NEWYORK"from Newsweek, June 30, 1988 and @ 1988,
"WASHINGTON
Newsweek, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.
FROMSTEPHEN
ENGELBERG,
"Inquiry into Pentagon Bribery Began with a
Telephone Call," in 7he New York Times, June 19, 1988. Copyright @ 1988
by The New York Times Complny. Reprinted by permission.
FRO)'HAROLD
FABER,
"Count of New York Cattle Lowest on Record," in n.
New York Times, June 19, 1988. Copyright @ 1988 by The New York Times
Company. Reprinted by permission.
"New Dates on Northern Yukon Artifacts: Holocene Not
FROMD. ERLENELSON,
Upper Pleistocene," Science, Vol. 232, May 9, 1986. Copyright 1985 by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
FROMMARKSTEVENS,
"Jetliner Crew Blamed for San Diego Crash," in The
Christian Science Monitor, April 23, 1979. Reprinted by permission from The
Christian Science Monitor @ The Christian Science Publishing Society. All
rights reserved.
FROMTHEBULLETIN
OF THE GREATER
NEWYORKAUTOMOBILE
DEALERS
ASSOCIATION,
"Pistachio I Scream." Reprinted with permission from the August 1979
Reader k Digest; News and Views, General Motors Acceptance Corp.; and the
Bulletin of the Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association.
"SAT Scores-How to Stop the Drop," in Family Circle,
FROMJANE WKITBREAD,
August 7 , 1978. Copyright 1978, Jane Whitbread. Reprinted by permission
of the author.
FROMSUSAN
EDMISTON,
"The Surprising Rewards of Strenuous Exercise," in
Woman's Day, November 20, 1978. Copyright @ by Diamandis
Communications, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Woman's Day
Magazine.
FROMSTEVE
ROBINSON,
"Continuing Ed for Jocks." The article is reprinted
courtesy of Sports //lustrated from the June 6, 1988 issue. Copyright @ 1988,
Time Inc. All rights reserved.
MCEVEDY,
"The Bubonic Plague," in Scimtifi American, February
FROMCOLIN
1988. Copyright @ 1988 by Scientific American, Inc. All rights reserved.
FROMKENNETH
R. SHEETS
WITH ROBERT
F. BLACK,
"For Health and for Wealth," in
U.S. News O World Rrprt, June 6, 1988. Copyright @ 1988, U.S. News &
World Report.
KIELY,"Hybrid Aircraft," in Technology Review, October 1988.
FROMTHOMAS
Reprinted with permission from Technology Review, copyright 1988.
FROMPHILIP
W. WEST,"Pollution Is Good for You," in The Christian Science
Monifor, July 25, 1979. Reprinted by permission from The Christian Science
Monitor. @ 1979 The Christian Science Publishing Society. All rights
reserved.
FROMOLIVIER
BERNIER,
"The 1958 Cadillac," in American Herifage, May/June 1988.
Reprinted by permission from American Heritage, Volume 39, Number 4.
Copyright 1988 by American Heritage, a division of Forbes Inc.
xiv
. PERMISSIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
FROMGEORGE
F. WILL,"The Dignity of Nursing," from Newsweek, May 23, 1988
and @ 1988, Newsweek, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.
"Will the Weather Channel Save America?" in Discover,
FROMJAMES GORMAN,
December 1987. Copyright 1987, James M. Gorman. First published in
Discoupr.
FROM
HUGHLLOYD-JONES,
"Founding Father." Reprinted from The American
Scholar, Volume 57, Number 1, Winter, 1988. Copyright @ 1987 by the
author. By permission of the publisher.
EFFECT?REALENOUGH,"
in The New York Times, June 23, 1988.
"THEGREENHOUSE
Copyright @ 1988 by The New York Times Company. Reprinted by
permission.
"The Only Fair Way for Elite Colleges to Choose Their
FROMJAMES W. JUMP,
Freshman Classes Is by Random Selection," in The Clrronicle of Higher
Education, April 7 , 1988. Copyright 1988, The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Reprinted with permission.
FROM JUSTICES' OPINIONS
ON SEARCHES
OF CURBSIDE
TRASH
BY POLICE,"
in
"EXCERPTS
The New York Times, May 17, 1988. Copyright @ 1988 by The New York
Times Company. Reprinted by permission.
FROMWAYNE
C. BOOTH,
"Enduring Interest Puts a True Classic on the List," in
The Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 1988. Reprinted with permission of
the author.
FROMDAVID
LLOYD,
"A Canon Must Include Works of Many Cultures," in The
Christian Science Monitor. Copyright 1989 by David Lloyd. Reprinted with
permission of the author.
FROMGERALD
GRAFF,
"Teach the Debate about What Books Are In or Out," in
The Chrisfian Science Monitor. Reprinted by permission of the author.
FROMLANCE
TRUSTY,
"College Students: Test-Taking Advice for the Wise," in
The Christian Science Monitor, October 2, 1978. Reprinted by permission.
FROMMARTHA
EVANS,
"Take Advantage," in The Daily Collegian, April 14, 1980.
@ 1980 Collegian, Inc., Publisher of The Daily Collegian. Reprinted by
permission of the publisher.
FROMP. J. O'ROURKE,
"The '60's Kids and the Crash." Originally appeared in
The American Spectator, February 1988. @ The American Spectator.
"A Plea for the Chimpanzees," in The New York Times, May
FROMJ A N E GOODALL,
17, 1987. Copyright @ 1987 by The New York Times Company. Reprinted
by permission.
Instructor's
Introduction:
What Kind of Argument
Text Is This?
This book represents an approach to teaching written argument that we

learned the hard way, after making many mistakes. If you look through
it, you will find little of the usual paraphernalia of logic-no square of
opposition, no Venn diagrams, no classification of syllogisms, no chapters
on induction and deduction. The absence of this material is deliberate, but
it is not missing because we reject it as a legitimate area of study. Rather,
we left it out because the more we taught argument to composition classes,
the less we used these materials in logic text form. When we began teaching argument, we spent days on syllogisms, fallacies, and the rules for
validity; but eventually we found the bridge between formal analysis and
the actual structuring of written arguments shaky. A student who was a
whiz at detecting an undistributed middle could not necessarily construct
an extended persuasive argument. So instead we have allowed the formal
material of logic to sink below the surface and to inform the advice we give
here about constructing sound arguments.
In our composition course in argument, we worked from an assumption
about topic choice: From the beginning, we were reluctant to assign students specific topics for three reasons. First, we distrusted our ability to
think of topics that would interest students. Second, we found that their
work improved when they wrote on subjects that interested them rather
than on subjects we thought they would find interesting. Third, we feared
. INSTRUCTOR'S INTRODUCTION
that students assigned specific topics would simply try to second-guess the
instructor's opinion on the issue instead of thinking through their own.
W e found, despite our initial misgivings, that students had little trouble
coming up with arguable topics from their own experiences, their rending,
their other courses, even their favorite sports, pastimes, and people. With
only the prodding of a few examples, students came to the next class
meeting with a list of things they were individually ready to argue for.
Their statements of position spontaneously took the form of single sentences: "Campus police should not carry guns." "The math department's
multiple-choice tests are ridiculous." "The university should give students
free textbooks." "The dorm reservation system is unfair." "Fast food is
stomach pollution." "My roommate is the cause of my being on academic
probation this year." W e found, in fact, that students can easily generate
the one-sentence thesis, the seed crystal of argument. Of course, this
preliminary thesis is not sacrosanct. Students modify, qualify, and complicate as they develop their arguments and discover what they can actually
support, and much of our class time is spent working through tentative
theses to show how they might be developed and adapted for potentially
interested audiences.
However, not all our students' preliminary theses were arguable in the
first place. We found, in the beginning of the course, that we had to back
u p and teach an awareness of what an audience will view as an arguable
statement or an inarguable one that asserts a fact or matter of taste. Distinguishing the arguable from the inarguable makes good theoretical sense as
well, for students must learn to use facts and reject unsupportable opinion
in their arguments. Therefore, this book begins with an extended discussion of what is and is not arguable, a more complex problem than most of
us start out realizing.
For a while we allowed our students to write on their miscellaneous
theses, directing them only with general advice about inference, inductive
and deductive structures, fallacies to avoid, and pro and con analyses of
issues. We soon grew dissatisfied, however, as we realized that this general
advice failed to give students the kind of specific guidance they needed.
When we took a closer look at the theses they wanted to argue for, we saw
the need to classify them. W e sifted through hundreds of thesis statements
from students, from published writing, and from our own imaginations,
expressed in all the untidy phrasings of everyday language. W e kept asking these questions: "How would you support such a statement?" "What
would an argument for this thesis look like?"
The answers grouped themselves into piles and the piles into heaps
under four headings, each representing a question that the thesis statement
answers: "What is it?" "How did it get that way?" "Is it good or bad?"
"What should we do about it?" Students were quick to grasp the simplicity
and con~pletenessof this four-part division, and, of course, it is not com-
INSTRUCTOR'S INTRODUCTION
.3
pletely new. The classical stases of Cicero, Quintilian, and Hermogenes

describe a similar taxonomy of arguments, though the number of basic
questions varies slightly from one thinker to another Basically, we bclicvc
that all modes of discourse can be subsumed under argumentation. Thus,
this book on argument includes chapters on causal analysis and comparison, which are traditionally considered forms of exposition
Not only do the four types of arguments answer different questions, but
in two cases the answers require different methods of argument. That is
why this division is teachable. It translates into specific advice for constructing arguments. Answers to the first question-"What
is it?"-can
always be put into the form of a statement that links its subject to a
category or quality More complicated answers to this basic question about
reality, like comparisons, eventually break down into such statements. The
support for these is always some combination of definition and evidence.
Traditional logic helps us with arguments about the nature of things but
has less to tell us about the second category, causal arguments answering
the question "How did it get that way?" Here we turned to John Stuart
Mill, whose methods of causal inquiry can also be used as structural
principles for generating causal argument But for purposes outside the
controlled conditions of the laboratory, Mill's methods are too elaborate
and formal, arguers frequently use less formal devices, such as "causal
chains," for convincing an audience of a causal connection And as a
heuristic for invention in causal argument, we devised sets of causes out
of familiar causal terminology. W e also found that no tactic of causal
argument is convincing without an assumption or demonstration of
agency, the smallest link between cause and effect Agency in causal argument and definition in arguments about the nature of things function as
warrants as they are defined in the Toulmin model of argumentation, we
find it useful to distinguish among types of warrants
Answers to the third and fourth questions-"Is
it good or bad)" and
"What should we do about it?"-require nothing conceptually new, only
a thoughtful arrangement of causal and definition arguments. W e explore
different subjects and methods of evaluation, using both definition and
causal arguments, and offer students an ideal outline of a full specific
proposal argument, which they can then adapt for their own purposes and
the needs of different subjects and audiences. In this section we also
encourage students to consider the ethical grounds of their evaluations and
proposals as well as the more obvious practical consequences
Just as ethical assumptions underlie proposals, so also does an ethical
assumption inform this book's proposal for teaching written argument We
believe that a course in written argument should produce not only clearly
organized wrlting but also clear-minded citizens, it should improve the
student's ability to think Therefore, our purpose has been to avoid, on the
one hand, formulas for argument that the student can fill in thoughtlessly
INSTRUCTOR'S INTRODUCTION
and, on the other, the kind of vagueness that high-mindedly admonishes

students to "think clearly, be creative and logical." Instead, we have tried
to give specific directions for the construction of arguments without doing
the students' thinking for them. For example, rather than order students
to "analyze the problem before making a proposal," we suggest that they
think about the causes that have brought the situation about, its bad
consequences, and its ethical wrongness. Such suggestions are stimuli for
invention, not cookie cutters of thought.
Since this book is a rhetoric, considerations of audience begin, end, and
permeate it. In the beginning of the book, we define an arguable thesis in
terms of audience; without support an audience can share, a writer has no
argument. In Parts I through IV we constantly remind our readers to ask
themselves how an audience will respond to their propositions to begin
with, whether they need to articulate their assumptions about agency or
definition, and what they must do to refute objections their audience may
raise. Finally, in Part V we discuss some of the finer adjustments in language and structure needed to accommodate an argument to a particular
audience.
Altogether then, this book provides a thorough guide to written argument. Since it begins with the simplest structures and builds to the more
complex, it can be used from front to back as a text on argumentation. But
since it is also divided into extended discussions of different types of
arguments, it can be consulted as a reference by writers with a particular
thesis to support. Although this book does not cover the general topics of
grammar or sentence effectiveness or paragraph coherence, it does discuss
word and example choice and calls attention to the affective power of
certain words and phrases. Its primary purpose is to help students think
about argument as structured discourse directed at particular audiences,
and the discussions filled with examples are meant to stimulate topic
choice. The instructor can then help students apply the advice to their own
particular topics.
Suppose you are an avid reader of science-fiction novels. You are working
your way through Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, Ray
Bradbury, Frank Herbert, and Ursula K. Le Guin, and hanging around the
sci-fi racks in bookstores is one of your favorite recreations. But you have
a friend who has expressed this preposterous opinion: "Science fiction
stinks; I can't stand to read it."
Although some people might shrug and say, "That's her business," you
don't want to leave this friend in darkness. You genuinely believe that she
is missing out on some enjoyable, thought-provoking reading. But can you
convince her? Is there anything you can say to change her mind?
The first thing you might do is ask your friend, "Why don't you like
it? What bothers you?" If she confesses she has never read any science
fiction because she just doesn't like "that sort of thing," then she has
presented no reasons you can argue against. Obviously she does have
reasons, but she does not or cannot articulate them to herself; the origins
of such preconceptions, prejudices, or mind-sets are perhaps beyond recall.
You can only urge your friend to give science fiction a try. Perhaps you
can tell her why you like it, if you know and if you can get her to listen
long enough.
Argument can go no further here; in fact, we can hardly call an exchange
at this level argument. One side demonstrates its taste to the other, while
the other side simply shrugs its shoulders. Many of our conversations
disengage this way, because they have no reason to continue. No minds
. MOTIVES FOR ARGUMENT
are changed, nothing happens because nothing is at stake. The only result
is that both sides have the satisfaction of declaring a preference.
When we feel that there is no common ground on an issue or that no
serious consequence is at stake, we do not usually argue.
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES
But when something is at stake, we do argue. Consequences, what is at
stake, can take different forms. In its most basic form, a consequence is a
concrete and immediate result. People can be blocked, they can lose something, and they can be hurt, even physically injured. If your friend's
opinion about science fiction could harm you in any way-if, for example,
she threatened to burn all your science-fiction books because she didn't
think they were worth reading-you would still be arguing. Or, to give
another example, suppose your father thinks that the college you want to
attend is nothing but a football factory; if he can withhold your funding,
he is worth arguing with over this issue.
Sometimes practical consequences are not so immediate, nor do they
concern only two opposed sides arguing with each other. What happens
in a profession or workplace, for example, ultimately matters to everyone
involved in the enterprise, so arguments within special groups deeply
engage their members. And of course what the government does about
welfare, nuclear energy, social security, or tax reform is eventually a matter
of consequence to every citizen and therefore subject to public argument.
When you argue for a desired consequence, it is by no means always
necessary to address your argument to an audience that disagrees with you.
In fact, most arguments are actually addressed to the uncommitted or to
those who are already friendly toward or in mild agreement with the
arguer's point. The arguer's purpose then is to bring certain things to the
attention of the unfocused, or to heat up the lukewarm so that they are
ready to take action. An audience can be anywhere on a spectrum from the
totally opposed to the totally committed, and any argument that nudges
them even a little in the direction of agreement is successful. Even lessening the disdain for your position in the minds of a totally opposed wdience
can be a positive outcome. If nothing else, you have justified your position,
showing your audience that you have reasons for your convictions. Martin
Luther certainly changed no minds when he made his famous "Here I
stand" speech before the prelates of the Catholic Church, but at least he
earned respect for himself, and his speech was persuasive when related to
other less entrenched audiences.
Arguments addressed to favorably inclined audiences can have other
practical consequences aside from such immediate ones as creating enough
MOTIVES FOR ARGUMENT
.7
votes for a new community park or starting a letter campaign. They can
also create a group cohesiveness, a solidarity among those who find themselves agreeing with the appeals cast at them. The person who articulates
the reasons that hold the group together may of course become its leader.
But more important is the fact that the argument that meets with agreement has created a human community ready to act together.
TRUTH WITHOUT APPARENT CONSEQUENCES

Many arguments, such as those surrounding government policies, arise
from matters of practical, immediate, or long-range consequence to those
who argue about them. But not all. We have all sat up late into the night
arguing inconclusively about matters like the following, which affect neither the bread on our tables nor the money in our pockets: "Is football a
better sport than baseball?" "Did the universe originate 20 billion years
ago in a big bang, or did it always exist?" "Was George Washington really
a great man or just the first president?" "Why were the Beatles so popular?" "Would Germany have won World War I1 if it had not been fighting
on two fronts?" Even if one side wins such an argument, nothing immediate or tangible changes or could change. World War I1 is over, the current
president will not be affected by our view of George Washington, and we
cannot do a thing about the universe. But we argue about such matters
because we want to hold views that are most nearly correct and we want
others to share our views. Thus, we could say that a kind of consequence
is at stake-our own intellectual integrity. We should care that the positions we hold are well thought out and that they could be held by other
careful thinkers.
And we should also consider the consequences that might follow from
the establishment of any particular point. We argue about isolated points
that someday may link up in a chain of consequences that affects our lives.
For example, we may conclude the argument about George Washington
with the evaluation that he was a supremely tactful administrator, and that
conclusion may somehow, someday, influence our choice of a committee
leader. Similarly, abstract argument about the nature of light can lead to
a concrete consequence like the laser. The present-day investigation of the
origin and composition of our solar system, a matter of much argument,
has no readily apparent consequences for us now. The layman cannot
imagine any practical result from deciding whether there is volcanic activity on 10. But someday the practical consequences will be there when
people explore, colonize, or mine other planets. Meanwhile we argue, and
in doing so we come to recognize more accurately what we can know, and
to what degree of certainty, by the extent to which we can convince others
to agree with us.
MOTIVES FOR ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT FROM EGO

We have to admit one more motive for argument, one that probably
inspires more spoken than written controversy. That motive is quite simply ego. We often defend our positions the way a bird defends its territory-fiercely, automatically, without stopping to think. We often fail to
see when ego is involved in any position we hold. After all, if we hold it,
we undoubtedly have good reasons. Ego also forces us to defend positions
just because someone else holds the opposite, and we cannot see that our
attitude toward our audience or opponent is crippling our judgment.
To convince yourself that you may argue from ego, imagine tE,e following situation. You and a friend are discussing (you wouldn't even call it
arguing) whether Tim Raines or Don Mattingly is a better all-around
baseball player. You are supporting Raines for his speed and on-base
percentage. Your friend points out that Mattingly has the better batting
average and is generally a more consistent and promising player. You are
just on the point of agreeing with your friend, when a third party swaggers
up and begins to sing Mattingly's praises in a loud, intrusive voice. It's
All-Star Charlie, the perfect mind in the perfect body, who in the past
defeated you for class president, stole your girlfriend, and beat you out for
a Merit Scholarship. All your life he's been three points ahead of you. He's
a walking baseball encyclopedia to boot, and cites Raines's and Mattingly's
averages for the last three years, the number of triples they've hit against
left-handed pitchers, their slugging percentages-all supporting the superiority of Mattingly. Suddenly you are seized by the blinding conviction
that Tim Raines is the most underrated player in the history of baseball,
and you passionately defend the player whom a moment ago you were
ready to abandon. You have no new points to make, only a new certainty
that your few facts outweigh your new opponent's many and that right
is on your side.
Obviously, ego is involved in this example. All of us find it difficult to
give points" to people we resist, for whatever reasons we resist them,
deep-seated or trivial, temporary or long-standing.
The tensions of ego are less obvious in written argument because the
act of writing distances and creates the possibility of many readers. Writing usually represents cool second thoughts rather than heated first impulses. You never see the glare in your opponents' eyes when you address
a written argument to them. Though ego filters into the written exchanges
of wounding critic and wounded artist, or scholars and scientists with
opposing points of view, heated arguments inspired solely by ego are rare
in print.
I,
What We Do Not
Argue About
FACTS
1. You say your living room is 22 feet long. Your mother says it's 25.
Would you argue about it? No, you'd pull out a tape measure and
find out.
2. You say your great-grandfather came over from Europe in 1900. Your
cousin says 1903. Would you argue? Not for long. You'd go ask your
oldest aunt, who remembers all the family history.
3. You say bronze is an alloy of tin and copper. Your friend says copper
and lead. The argument should go no further than the nearest encyclopedia or dictionary.
Why does common sense tell you not to waste breath arguing over
choices like those in the examples above? Because only one side or answer
can be right, and the right answer can be found and verified. We call such
discoverable answers facts.
A fact is a statement that can be verified, and once we accept its verification we must say yes to it. If we can agree on a means of verification,
10
WHAT W E DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT
we can also agree with satisfaction that a statement is a fact, or at least that
it could be a fact if we had appropriate verification. For example, a friend
informs you that the author Washington Irving was a bachelor. This statement is either a fact or it is not. You could be miles away from the nearest
library, with no means of verification at hand, and still recognize such a
statement as a potential fact.
Most people in the same culture share a similar sense of what can or
cannot be a fact. Let's look at some statements to test that sense and see
if we can agree on what could and could not be a fact.
1. An American football field is 100 yards long
2. Abraham Lincoln died on April 15, 1865.
3. Cats are mammals.

4. There are 437 jelly beans in Anna's jar.
5. I passed medieval history last term.
6. M y car just hit a telephone pole.
Obviously, all of these statements could be facts. They have to do with
time, size, quantity, and clear-cut, acceptable classifications or identifications. These measures are the means by which we create reality, the concepts we share for organizing the world.
W e can also recognize a statement as a potential fact in another way.
If we turned these statements into questions (Is an American football field
100 yards long?), each question could have only one right answer. Lincoln
could not have died on two different days; and if we assume that cats are
animals, they can belong to only one of the five classes of vertebrates. The
jelly beans in Anna's jar must add u p to one definite number; we know
that a student cannot both pass and fail the same course; and w e all know
what a telephone pole is.
Let's take a look at another list.
1 . There are 8,963,672,811 beetles in the world.
2. The United States should send an astronaut to Mars.
3. "Happy Birthday" is the most frequently sung song in English.

4. Woody Allen is the greatest comedian who ever lived.
5. Women are more intuitive than men.
6. It is wrong to eat animals.
For various reasons, none of these statements can be a fact. Formulated
as questions, some of them have only one right answer, but there is no way
to find out what that answer is. The number of beetles in the world is finite,
but no one has devised a way to count them all. So we recognize a state-
WHAT WE DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT
. 11
ment like "There are 8,963,672,811 beetles in the world" as a claim of

impossible certainty. It cannot be a fact. (Of course, the number of beetles
in the world can be estimated, but when a statement is an estimate, its
wording should reveal that.) What other statement in the list above cannot
be a fact because what it is talking about cannot be counted? (Hint: W h o
knows what you sing in the shower?)
The complete set of some things, like beetles and songs, cannot be
counted even though we know what they are; othzr things cannot be
measured because we may disagree or be uncertain about what they are.
Consider the statement "Women are more intuitive than men." What is
"intuitive"? It is an abstraction, a word that names no clear, single object
or action. Even if we could give a rough definition of a word like intuitive,
could a person's intuition be measured accurately? When accuracy is not
possible, we have no fact. Therefore, it cannot be a /act that "Women are
more intuitive than men," although some people might want to argue for
the probability of this statement by establishing a sharable definition of
"intuitive" and a plausible test by which we can recognize "intuition" in
the behavior of men and women.
A recommendation like "The United States should send an astronaut to
Mars" is obviously not a fact. You will learn that this kind of statement,
with a recommending verb like should in it, is best labeled a proposal, something to be argued for. Even if you took a poll and found that all 280
million (estimate!) Americans agreed that we should send an astronaut to
Mars, this proposal would still not be a fact. The only fact would be that
280 million people agreed with this recommendation. The recommendation itself still has no one right answer; a spectrum of responses, beyond
a simple yes or no, is possible. Thus, argument is possible. Imagine the
variety of responses to the question "Should we send an astronaut to
Mars?"
We definitely
should
We
should
Should look
into it
If we have
the money
Maybe in
ten years
Of doubtful
value
Whenever the response to a statement can be diagrammed this way, we

do not have a fact.
You will learn to call a statement like "It is wrong to eat animals" an
evalunfion. Even if you are a committed vegetarian who wants others to
share your conviction, you can recognize that this statement could never
12
be a fact. Apply the test: Is a spectrum of responses possible? Yes. Then

the statement cannot be fact.
Yes, except
pork and shellfish
Depends on
how they're
killed
Not on
Friday
Never
raw
No red meat
Let's summarize what makes a statement a fact

1 . It must deal with something we agree to measure or label in a certain
way. Thus, we can make factual statements only about things we can
measure in time and spacn, or things we can identify without ambiguity.
2. We can respond to a fact statement only with a yes or no, accepting
it with a yes if it is verified or rejecting it with a no if it is not. If we
can answer "maybe" or "probably," we have an arguable statement.
You may think our definition of "fact" very narrow. It is. To say that
we do not argue about facts, as we have defined them, is only to say that
once we agree that a statement is a fact, argument ceases. But determining
whether a statement is a fact may give rise to a great deal of controversy.
When people disagree about the label for something or about how it can
be measured, the dispute may concern whether a statement can be accorded the status of fact. Whether or not dogs dream, for instance, depends
on whether we can agree about what behavioral manifestations enable us
to say with certainty that a dog is dreaming. So we often do argue, sometimes heatedly, over whether a statement can be a fact.
DEMONSTRATING FACTS
While we do not argue for facts the way we argue for claims that can evoke
more than yes or no responses, we may nevertheless find it necessary to
lay out the steps we followed in order to infer a fact. We call this process
not argument but demonstration. The goal of demonstration is not an audience's increased adherence but its unqualified assent. We can claim some
success for an argument if it does no more than make our opposition less
sure of itself. We can claim no success for a demonstration if it does not
W H A T WE DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT
. 13
clearly and unambiguously convince our audience. Arguments support but

demonstrations prove. It is all or nothing in demonstration. We can even
put the difference in stronger terms. Someone who persistently disagrees
with our arguments may seem pigheaded or stubborn, but someone who
persistently disagrees with the clear demonstration of a matter of fact will
begin to seem insane. That is the category our society maintains for people
who do not share the majority's sense of reality.
Here is a simple example of a demonstration. You know your friend has
two brothers and one sister. So you infer that there are four children in
your friend's family: One plus one plus two equals four. That's a fairly
airtight demonstration of a matter of fact. Everyday examples of factual
demonstrations abound: If I had 250 dollars in my checking account and
wrote a check for 350 dollars, my account is overdrawn; if I am at the
shopping mall in the afternoon, I cannot be home at the same time; if my
library book was due on June 10 and it is now June 20, it is overdue; if I
cannot leave work until 4:00 and it takes me at least half an hour to drive
to my dentist, I will be late for a 4:15 appointment. You can readily expand
this list of tidy little demonstrations by which we try to manage our daily
lives.
The same process of convincing demonstration rather than probable
argument is the goal, though perhaps rarely the achievement, of courtroom
procedures. The defense may try to prove that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed. A person cannot be in two
places at once. Or the body in question could not be John Doe because John
Doe was six feet tall and the skeletal remains of the body found are five
feet six. If the defense could really marshal demonstrations of such clarity,
it is unlikely the case would come to trial in the first place.
Mathematics is certainly concerned with demonstration, the proof of
conclusions according to the fixed axioms of a mathematical system such
as Euclidean or Riemannian geometry. Many people mistakenly believe
that all scientific argument is likewise really demonstration, but while
scientific argument may aspire to the force of demonstration, whether or
not it succeeds can be a matter of audience. Take as an example the
establishing of "facts" in archaeology or prehistory. Suppose that a team
of archaeologists digging at the mouth of a cave in Pennsylvania comes
upon a ring of charcoal at a certain stratigraphically defined level. Are these
the remains of a human hearth? Suppose that carbon dating places the
charcoal at fourteen thousand years ago, plus or minus two thousand
years, making this cave the oldest site of human occupation in North
America. Surely the discovery of a ring of charcoal at the mouth of a cave
must prove human presence and carbon dating must prove the time. The
inference seems inescapable. But suppose that other archaeologists believe
that such charcoal rings can be produced by natural means, such as lightning strikes. If another explanation is possible, and it usually is in sciences
14
like archaeology, then the argument for the presence of humans on the
basis of the presence of a charcoal hearth remains just that, an argument,
not a demonstration. Scientists themselves are usually modest about their
claims and hedge them in as probabilities, even when no colleague has
produced a plausible counterexplanation. But nonspecialists, perhaps
reading about the archaeologists' "find" in the newspaper, would take the
discovery as proof of the fact of early habitation.
The appeal of demonstration then is strong, so strong that we could say
that all argument aspires to the status of demonstration. Ideally an arguer
would like to appear to be establishing a matter of fact rather than supporting a probability. And such an appearance can be created with carefully
chosen language, especially for naive or less resistant audiences. Researchers have found that just the use of the label fncf can confer higher credibility on a statement; readers or listeners feel they have touched bedrock with
phrases like "it is a fact that." Furthermore, our society has a preference
for "information," and a great deal of the argument addressed to general
audiences these days masquerades as "information," the mere transport of
matters of fact from source to audience. We hope that after reading this
book you will be much more sparing in your use of the label fact.
EXERCISE
Examine the following statements very carefully. Which of them could be
facts and which could not? In which sentences does the definition of a
critical word determine whether the statement could be a fact?
1. The New York Yankees are the best baseball team in the world.
2 . Franklin
D. Roosevelt was a popular president.
3. Jelly Roll Morton's real name was Ferdinand La Menthe.

4. Smoking causes cancer.
5 . The four strings on a cello are
C, G, D, and A.
6 . The amount of knowledge has doubled twice in the last century.

7. Ninety percent of all the scientists who ever lived are still alive.
8. Armadillos always give birth to four young of the same sex.

9. Oak furniture is the heaviest.
10. If you sit on cold concrete, you will get piles.
11. The kumquat tree grows to a height of 15 feet.

12. The writings of Dionysius the Areopagite had an important influence on
both the Eastern and Western churches until the sixteenth century, when
their authenticity was challenged.
W H A T WE DO N O T ARGUE ABOUT
. 15
13. Classical music was composed from roughly 1750 to 1820.

14. The piano replaced the harpsichord as the most popular keyboard instrument in the nineteenth century.
15. Primo Carnera was the biggest man ever to win the world's heavyweight
championship (6 feet 5 inches, 220 pounds).
16. The Nambiquara of the northwest Mato Grosso section of Brazil are the
only people who lack any system of numbers. (They do, however, have a
verb that means "they are two alike.")
17. Winslow Homer didn't begin to paint seriously until 1862.
18. The oldest museum in the world is the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford,
England, built in 1679.
19. Chopin is often called "the poet of the keyboard."
20. The invasion of Russia was Napoleon's biggest mistake
21. A mouse eats one-quarter to one-half of its body weight in food every day.
22. The most frequently sung songs in English are "Happy Birthday,'' "For He's
a Jolly Good Fellow," and "Auld Lang Syne."
23. Novel reading was widespread in middle- and upper-class households by
the middle of the nineteenth century.
24. Flight 226 will depart for Albuquerque at 7:06
P.M.
FOR YOU TO ANAL YZE

The following are short excerpts from newspaper and magazine articles.
Carefully distinguish the statements that are or could be facts from those
that could not. Don't be fooled by the punctuation of sentences; a fact can
be less than a whole sentence.
Recent fossil discoveries in Australia have pushed the date of man's arrival
on the island continent substantially further into the past and have added a
hitherto unknown element to the gene pool of the Australian aborigine. Twenty
years ago the aborigines were thought to have reached Australia only a few
thousand years ahead of the Europeans. This view was overturned in the 1960's
by the discovery at Kow Swamp in the eastern Australia state of Victoria of a
skull that was between 10,000 and 15,000 years old and aborigine in physical
type. Since then fossil aborigine remains as much as 20,000 years old have been
Found at sites along the Murray River in Victoria. Human fossils have now been
found buried in the sands of a dry-lake region in western New South Wales
only 50 miles north of the Murray River. They appear to be more than twice
as old as the Kow Swamp skull.
-"Aboriginal
Aborigines"
SrienfificAmerican
16
WHAT WE D O NOT ARGUE ABOUT
Ocean City, Md., detectives investigating the deadly fire at The Beachcomber Motel have turned up several suspects, and Mayor Roland (Fish) Powell
said yesterday that "it's very possible" the fire was caused by a dangerous game
called fireballing.
Police have determined that the fire that engulfed the top floor of the 24year-old motel early last Sunday began in a vacant unit, said police Det. Vicki
Martin. Two Pennsylvania students were killed and 17 other persons were
injured in the fire.
The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms continues to study
samples of the curtains and carpet taken from the room to determine the cause.
Local detectives suspect it was students playing the bizarre game of fireballing,
which involves spitting out a mouthful of grain alcohol and lighting the spray
with a lighter or match, said Powell, a former fire chief. The game was popularized by the movie Revenge of the Nerds, Part II.
"It's very possible" the game led to the fire, Powell said yesterday after
conversations with detectives. "There is talk [about fireballing]."
"I'm not an investigating officer and I don't read their reports, but there is
a strong possibility it was fireballing," he said.
Detectives played down Powell's remarks, saying they are looking at all
possibilities, including cigarettes.
Seventy-five guests, most of them students celebrating the end of the school
year, were awakened by the fire, which was noticed at 3:19 A.M. by a patrol
officer. Seventeen persons were injured, one seriously, in the blaze, which broke
out on the top floor. Four guests leaped from the third floor to a trash dumpster
below, and a 1-year-old child was tossed into the waiting arms of police officers.
-"Suspects Emerge in Fire Probe"
Washington Post
MATTERS OF PERSONAL TASTE

That Word Opinion
If you pay careful attention to everyday conversation, you will notice
phrases that serve as "stop signs" to argument: "That's just your opinion."
"That's a matter of opinion." "You're entitled to your own opinion."
"Well, that's my opinion." In each case the word opinion seems to mean
"something that cannot be argued about." We all have many reasons for
not wanting to argue: The time may be wrong; the person may not be
someone we want to argue with; or we may not feel entirely sure of our
ground. For many such social and practical motives, we often disengage
from argument with one of these "opinion" phrases. The motives do not
concern us here, but the use of the word opinion does.
We often use the word opinion, as in the phrases above, to suggest not
that the situation is inappropriate for argument, but that certain subjects
. 17
are taboo or that argument itself is impolite. The problem is that the word
opinion, in the sense of "something not to be argued about," is often used
loosely. We label as matters of opinion, not to be argued, many subjects
that can and indeed should be argued. For example, most of us have been
schooled in politeness and told "never argue about politics and religion."
In certain social situations, this advice is wise, but we should not take it
as a total ban on thinking, writing, and arguing about these topics. There
is a difference between the subject and the situation.
Only one kind of statement deserves the label opinion in the sense of
"something that cannot be argued about." Once we identify it we will at
the same time have defined argument. To be brief, we cannot argue for
anything whose grounds of support are wholly personal. For example, how
could a statement such as "I like vegetable soup" be supported? The soup
lover can give all kinds of reasons: "because I like vegetables," "because
I like soup," "because it reminds me of winter afternoons and my mother,"
"because it is nutritious." But all these reasons amount to explanation for
a preference, not argument. And most of them are obviously personal, the
kind of statements that only an "I" can make. Although such statements
of personal preference often supply us with conversation, we do not argue
about them, undoubtedly because we sense the pointlessness.
If you cannot demonstrate any sharable, impersonal grounds for a statement, you do not have a subject for argument. You have an opinion. You
can explain the grounds for your opinion with more opinions, and then
you have an excursion in self-examination, of interest mainly to yourself
and those who care to listen, but still no argument. Now we have defined
opinion as we shall use the term in this book:
An opinion is a statement of preference

whose grounds are wholly personal.
That is a deliberately boxed-in, restricted definition. Next time someone
tries to weasel out of an argument by claiming "It's just a matter of
opinion," you can at least argue about whether the topic fits that definition.
Now that we have defined opinion, a definition of a matter for argument
falls in our laps:
An arguable statement can evoke degrees of adherence, and its grounds
of support do not depend on the individual who holds them.
These definitions make the distinction between an opinion and an arguable statement look clear, but our habitually imprecise use of language
18
. W H A T WE DO NOT ARGUE A B O U T
often makes the sorting out of arguable and inarguable statements a cl~allenge. W e must not be fooled by the casual wording of a statement. Whether
a ;fatunen/ 15 arguable is determinc~riby the grounrl~of I[; support, not by ik wording.
Let us look at some language problems that fool us into thinking that we
either do or do not have an arguable statement.
An Arguable Statement That Masquerades as Personal

W e often tack a personal label onto statements as though we were identifying them as our own property: "I think," "I believe," "It is my opinion,"
and the ever-popular "I feel."
1. I believe t h ~ college
t
football should have a play-off system.
2. I think that most lawyers are honest.
3. l n my opinion downtown was a mess after the homeconling parade.
4. I feel the United States should curtail the development of nuclearpower plants.
These look like the vegetable soup example, statements of personal preference. W e often add personal qualifiers in order to soften or tone down
statements that we want to assert only casually, that we do not expect to
be challenged on. But references to self can mask the arguable nature of
such statements in some circumstances. Suppose you were the author of
the last statement in the list above; you could claim, "Well, that certainly
is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it." But if you were asked to give the
grounds for your position on nuclear power, are you likely to say "Because
I d o not care for radiation" or "Nuclear fission is not to my taste"? Of
course not. Instead you would produce as grounds the dangers of radiation,
the likelihood and consequences of a reactor accident, and the problems
of nuclear-waste disposal. These grounds actually support a more direct
argumentative statement: "The United States should curtail the development of nuclear-power plants." Policies concerniny nuclear power should
not rest on personal grounds.
A Personal Statement That Masquerades as Arguhble

The pronoun "I" appears in none of the following statements.
1. Red is a terrific color.
2. Variegated peanut butter ice cream is the pits.
3. St. Laurent's "Opium" is the most exquisite of perfumes.
. 19
Imagine asking the holder of any of these positions for grounds of

support; then the pronoun I would almost certainly appear. Most people
would not try to argue objectively for the exquisiteness of a perfume.
Instead they would come up with statements like the following: " 'Opium'
is a sweet and heavy scent, and I like sweet, heavy perfumes." "It reminds
me of summer nights in a greenhouse." "My boyfriend bought me my first
bottle." You get the idea. The test of an opinion is whether the grounds
of support are purely personal, not whether the pronoun I or a statement
of preference is attached to the sentence.
Discovering Arguable Grounds

Suppose you make the claim "I don't like having to declare a major." That
certainly looks like a statement of personal taste, mere opinion. You may
repeat the claim emphatically to anyone who will listen, expressing your
frustration with the system you find yourself in. But suppose you discover
in the Sfudenf Handbook a little-known provision allowing students who
have maintained a certain grade average the option of making a case for
an independent degree program that need not meet the requirements of
any specific major or college. Such students earn a Bachelor of Philosophy
degree.
You now have a chance to act, to change your circumstances if you can
convince a particular audience, a board made up of administrators and
representative faculty members, to agree to your personally designed
course of study. But in order to persuade them, you will have to find
sharable reasons and not just personal likes and dislikes. Suppose you
begin by listing all the reasons you can think of for not wanting to declare
a major.
1. I'm not just interested in one thing: I like botany, English history,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
mechanical drawing, acting, and finance.

I don't know why the college should dictate what courses I have to
take. Who's paying for this education anyway?
I know lots of former graduates who don't work in the field they
graduated in.
If I had to take twelve courses in the same area I'd be bored to death.
No one in this school can predict what knowledge will be necessary
ten years from now, or what new careers will evolve.
I didn't come here to be trained for a career.
I liked it better in high school where I didn't have to be so narrow.
I don't know what I want to do with my life yet.
20
. WHAT WE D O N O T ARGUE ABOU?
Having survived in the world and school for several years, you immediately recognize that this list would not convince an official board to give
you permission to design your own degree program. Most of these statements look like personal preferences supporting your dislike of the need
to major in something. You are not arguing to convince someone else when
you simply demonstrate that you do not like what you do not like.
But one of these reasons looks unlike the others: number 3, "I know lots
of former graduates who don't work in the fields they graduated in." Here
you glimpse a reason that might be acceptable to the community you are
addressing. For one thing there are generally acknowledgable facts involved here. You know of several cases-well, four-and there may be
statistical evidence of a lack of connection between college major and
ultimate career. You might be able to bring your audience to acknowledge
that since an inevitable connection does not exist between major and
career, then perhaps it is not necessary to insist on a major in your case.
Promising. If you can find something your audience will agree to-like
facts about majors and careers-then you have a better chance of persuading them in your favor. You will spend some time in the library seeing if
college counselors have studied the destinations of college graduates. Even
if most people stay in careers defined by their college majors, any evidence
of a minority who take off in other directions provides an argument for
granting an exception.
Armed with your new insight, you reexamine your raw list looking for
other potentially sharable reasons. Your feeling of uncertainty about an
ultimate goal or career in life again looks like a personal idiosyncracy but
here lurks not a fact perhaps but a sharable value. Your school, like many
others, values preparing students for productive lives, but even more, it
values learning or education as its own end. If you can cast your personal
preference as a value that coincides with the predictable values of your
audience, you have a reason that might be persuasive to them.
The second reason on your list also looks very unpromising: "I don't
know why the school should dictate what courses I have to take. Who's
paying for, this education anyway?" It amounts to a direct challenge to
your school's power to design courses of study. But once again it contains
a sharable point, this time a partial definition of what a university or
college is. It is not exactly a business, but it does have "consumers" or
"customers" that it has to please. And there is a principle of fairness, again
a value, involved in giving consumers what they are paying for. You realize
that phrasing will be critical here, but the point you will want to get across
is that the school has a responsibility, by its very nature, to meet the
educational goals of the individual student halfway, to be able to bend to
those who want something slightly different for their tuition dollars. Aha!
Here you suddenly find a fact at your disposal as well, the fact that your
WHAT WE D O N O T ARGUE ABOUT
. 21
school did create the provision for an independently designed Bachelor of

Philosophy degree in the first place.
By now you realize that the act of arguing involves converting what
seem mere personal and idiosyncratic preferences into socially acknowledgeable facts and socially sharable values. Another promising value in the
academic community, though not as strong perhaps as others, is a tolerance
for diversity, for "interdisciplinary" work (there's a word you recognize as
likely to trigger approbation in your audience).
The Student Handbook's explanation of the Bachelor of Philosophy option
stipulates that candidates must have maintained a certain grade-point
average. The facts on your transcript support your penchant for interdisciplinary work and your success at it. But more is needed than a record of
good grades in a wide variety of courses. You realize that you must construct a positive image of your "course hopping" and of yourself as a
person with certain values and aspirations, not someone who, as reason
number 4 on your list suggests, is easily bored by sustained work in one
area. Here you come to a sensitive area: Should you lie about yourself in
order to please the prejudices of college authorities? No. But you need not
go out of your way to talk about every negative reaction you have ever
had to a course or instructor. Much better to make a virtue out of exactly
what you are, a person with very diverse tastes and talents, a generalist in
a world of specialists. You realize that a decision in your favor will have
a great deal to do with how your audience perceives your character. In
order to build a positive character for yourself in the eyes of your audience,
it may be wise simply to describe positive experiences in the most diverse
of your courses, like the botany course in which you made a special catalog
of the flora in the fields north of campus or the history course in which
you researched the nineteenth-century town from which some of your
ancestors emigrated. Thinking over these courses, and talking them over
with friends who also took them, you realize that what you have really
learned in the variety of courses you have taken is a diversity of research
methods and an appreciation of how knowledge is constructed in various
fields. There is surely a positive value in an educational program that can
produce such an awareness; that is a value you can definitely make explicit
to your audience.
You began with a personal statement of what you didn't like, made
apparently in anger. But with the chance of addressing a real audience and
actually changing your situation, you were forced to examine the reasons
and motives behind your feelings. The list you made was far from promising; your "reasons" looked like more declarations of feelings. But in order
to persuade others you had to produce reasons that were sharable, that did
not depend on the tastes and preferences of the individual holding them.
By a process of thinking through your preferences and talking them over
with others and by continually keeping a lively idea of your audience and
22
what might convince them in mind, you were able to turn your likes and
dislikes into acceptable, sharable reasons that as far as possible approximated the standards of fact and value that your audience probably holds.
Hard work at drafting, phrasing, and revising faces you, but you now have
a chance of changing things in your favor that you did not have before.
This example of working from an emotional statement to a shaped
argument demonstrates that the mere wording of a claim will not inevitably tell you if you have a matter of taste or a matter of argument. You
have to do some digging in the ground behind the statement. If you can
unearth a reason that you can share with your audience, you have a subject
for argument. But anything depending solely on your own taste can only
be explained, not argued for. You will be surprised to find how many
respectable subjects for argument lurk behind your opinions if the audience and occasion arise to explore them. In our analysis of "I don't like
having to declare a major," we have taken you through an example of the
stages of invention in coming up with an argument. Now we can summarize the steps in this process.
1. You began with a statement of conviction. Its apparent genesis was,
if anything, emotion rather than thought.

2. Then, prompted by a specific audience and situation, you looked to
see what reasons you could find for that conviction. The list you
came up with did not look promising. All but one of the reasons were
more emotional claims.
3. But that one led to a new, less personal formulation of your original
conviction.
4. Once you had an arguable statement and one supporting statement
(in fact you would not have had the arguable statement without the
support), you looked over those other reasons again and found sharable grounds for some of them. In that way you found even more
support for your original arguable statement.
WHAT, THEN, IS ARGUMENT?

While we have been discussing what argument is not, we have been
indirectly suggesting what it is. Now it is time to restate our definitions
explicitly. Every argument has four essential elements:
1. A thesis statement, a claim, a proposition to be supported, which
deals with a matter of probability, not a fact or a matter of taste.

2. An audience to be convinced of the thesis statement.
23
3 . Exigence, the need to make an argument at a certain time, in a
circumstance, or for a purpose.

4. Grounds, reasons, or, as they are sometimes formally called, premises
that support the thesis.
The Thesis Statement

Every argument, no matter how long or how complicated, has a single,
overriding thesis. That single thesis may be qualified, elaborated, complicated, or hedged all around, yet the arguer must always be able to answer
the question "What is your point?" Whether in the form of a letter to the
editor, a term paper, a scholarly article, a book review, or the book itself,
all arguments can be summed up in a single statement that the whole
discourse is designed to support. Edward Gibbon's multivolume Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire, John Stuart Mill's eloquent essay On Liberty, Sigmund Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents, E. D. Hirsch's Cultural Literaryeven these long, involved arguments can be comprehended as support for
a single claim. Actually, long and complex arguments such as these are
collections of smaller arguments for subsidiary theses that combine to
support the main thesis. Whether the unit of argument is a paragraph or
a book, that basic element, the thesis statement, must be discoverable.
If you state a fact and verify it, you are demonstrating its truth, but you
are not arguing. If you declare a personal taste and account for it, you are
sharing an opinion, but you are not arguing. Argument concerns itself with
neither fact nor taste, but with that vast middle territory of statements that
are more or less probable. It is, for example, a fact that lakes are inland
bodies of water; it is a matter of taste whether any individual likes to
vacation by a lake; but it is a matter of argument whether the shore of a
particular lake should be zoned for commercial or for recreational development. This last issue has no one right answer; with good intent and the
same facts at their disposal, reasonable people might argue on either side.
But even the side that wins this argument has not established a truth, only
the probable wisdom of a particular choice.
Audience
Now imagine yourself an orator standing on a deserted shore declaiming
a thesis to the lake itself: "This lake should remain free and wild forever."
Nice thesis, but no argument. An argument needs a human audience,
someone to convince. Thus, the second essential element of argument i "
an audience that the arguer wants to have an effect on, whether to make
them believe something, to increase their belief in something, or to urge
24
them to act on that belief. Of course it is possible to argue with oneself,

but only by temporarily splitting the self into two personalities, the one
waiting to be convinced by the other.
The particular audience of an argument influences how you arguecoolly or with passion, tentatively or with strong conviction, elliptically or
in great detail. Imagine arguing the thesis "The south shore of Mendona
Lake should become a nature preserve" with different audiences: The
federal agency that might fund the nature preserve; the local real-estate
developers; the conservation club of a neighboring big city; the people who
live near the lake; the readers of National Geographic. The local audience will
require much less basic information about the lake than the readers of
National Geographic; the conservation club will be more open to your argument than the real-estate developers whose immediate interests are at
stake. Thus, different audiences require significant differences in the support, organization, and wording of your argument.
Exigence
All real arguments have another requirement, something so obvious it is
invisible. In our example of arguing to preserve the lake, we have to
imagine our speaker standing up at a town meeting in order to capture the
full picture of a complete argument. This narrative detail is far from trivial.
In order for a real argument to occur there must be some forum and
occasion, like a town meeting, some push in the time and circumstances
and some purpose for making claims and supporting them. The combination of all these factors has been called the exigence. An argument has
exigence when it speaks to its time, situation, and audience. Imagine a very
imperfect stranger stopping you in the street and forcefully detaining you
for a harangue on the merits of plastic toothpicks, an argument totally
without exigence in persons, time, situation, and purpose, and you will
appreciate the necessity of exigence in argument.
In speaking situations where the factors of time and place are powerful
and inescapable, exigence is easy to understand. But in writing situations
exigence is harder to grasp. The "now" of the writer is never the "now"
of the reader; the writer can rarely count on the reader's background
information or sense of urgency over an issue and can never make moment-to-moment adjustments to the perplexities and gleams that cross a
reader's face. Plato distrusted writing for these reasons and made Socrates
complain, ". . . once a thing is committed to writing it circulates equally
among those who understand the subject and those who have no business
with it; a writing cannot distinguish between suitable and unsuitable readers. And if it is unfairly abused it always needs its parent to come to its
rescue; it is quite incapable of defending or helping itself."
To compensate for this inherent disconnection from its audience, a
25
written argument must frequently create its own exigence. It must give its
readers a reason for reading, an answer to the fatal question "So what?"
In other words, rather than sorting out the suitable from the unsuitable
readers, an argument with exigence tries to create suitable readers. Obviously an arguer faces varying degrees of challenge in creating exigence for
an audience. The PTA president will use a mailing list to reach a potentially
interested audience and will use appeals to an upcoming school fair to give
a further push. A writer for a mass-circulation audience has a much more
challenging job to commit the merely curious, but actually journalists have
developed a closet full of standard devices to create exigence.
Support
Now imagine standing up at a town meeting called on the lake and saying,
"This lake should remain free and wild forever," and then sitting down.
Audience, thesis, and exigence this time, but still no argument. The fourth
necessary element of argument is a premise, a reason for an audience to be
convinced of the thesis statement. As an arguer you should follow the
thesis with at least one "because" statement: "This lake should remain free
and wild forever, because only then will our children and grandchildren be
able to enjoy it." Finally, you have an argument, a thesis, and a supporting
statement addressed to an audience whose attention has been captured by
the importance of the issue. You could make a much longer argument by
introducing more supporting statements for the thesis or by supporting the
supporting statements themselves, but at least one premise, one statement
that gives the audience a reason to adhere to the thesis, is necessary.
These two elements (thesis and premise) should be explicit. But notice
that you have also, strange as it may seem, been working with something
that is not stated. You and your audience would not agree that "this lake
should remain free and wild forever" because "only then will our children
and grandchildren be able to enjoy it" unless you also agreed that "the lake
is only enjoyable if it is free and wild." If for some reason you sensed that
your audience might not adhere to that unspoken proposition, you would
have to bring it out and argue for it as well.
An unspoken premise is called an assumption. When you argue you can
leave out or assume whatever you feel confident your audience already
knows or believes. In fact, you cannot argue at all without some assumptions, which are the common ground, the shared preconceptions and beliefs of arguer and audience. Although an arguer will assume more or less,
depending on the audience, every argument leaves something out.
Thesis, audience, exigence, and support, then, are the inextricable elements in every argument. Of these four, audience is the most variable,
indeed infinitely variable, since we can have as many audiences as there
26
. WHAT WE DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT
are people either singly or in endless combinations. Put the same people
in a different situation and you have a different audience. The kind of
support an argument requires depends on its thesis, but the degree of
support depends on audience and is therefore quite variable. You can also
create innumerable theses because there are innumerable subjects for argument, but in a sense the thesis statement is the least variable of the four
elements, because any arguable thesis can be classified into one of four
major categories, according to what kind of fundamental question it answers. These fundamental questions constitute the organizational principle
of this book: "What is it?" "How did it get that way?" "Is it good or bad?"
"What should we do about it?"
This system of classifying theses gives you the best outline for learning
argument, not just because the number four is easier to comprehend than
infinity, but because the nature of the thesis determines much of the
content of an argument. The kind of support varies according to the thesis,
though, once again, the degree varies according to audience. This book will
constantly remind you to consider audience, but it teaches argument by
concentrating on thesis and support.
EXERCISE
Here are some apparently personal statements of conviction and the reasons behind them. Can you discover impersonal premises in any of the
reasons?
1. The Blue Ridge Mountains are a wonderful vacation spot.
a. The mountains and lakes are beautiful.

b. There is a magnificent Holiday Inn just off the interstate.
c. They have honeymoon resorts with heart-shaped beds.
d. I played tennis and golf, went horseback riding, and danced the evening
away.
2. I do not like Senator Griffenbottom.
a. He is a Republican/Democrat.
b. He is a lawyer.
c. 1 can't stand politicians who get nose jobs.
d. His wife drinks.
3. I find AM rock repulsive.
a. It teaches thirteen-year-olds bad morals.
b. The music is monotonous.
c. It's a manufactured product, plastic music for plastic people.
d. The lyrics are illiterate.
27
4. Watching sports on television is an incredible waste of time.

a. I have better things to do.
b. Joe Garagiola/John M a d d e n / is uninformed.

c. I'm tired of commercials for shaving cream, beer, and deodorant.
d. Televised sports have ruined too many of my weekends.
FOR YOU TO WRITE

1. Write a paragraph of rant. That is, carry on in strong language about
something you dislike intensely. Here's a start: "One thing that really
" Now imagine trying to convince somemakes me furious is .
one else to share your loathing. Is there anything in your rant that
you could convert into an argument? That is, can you find sharable
rather than purely personal grounds for support?
Take one such point and write another paragraph convincing an
impartial audience that the object of your rant deserves their loathing
too.
2. Do the same for a boast, a paragraph of extravagant self-praise. Then
try to convince an audience of strangers such as the readers of a job
application that your high opinion of yourself is justified.
Part One
WHAT IS IT?
Claims
About the Nature
of Things
Recognizing the existence of things, and naming, categorizing, or describing them are basic activities we all perform all of the time. The following
series of sentences represents these activities. You should recognize that
the first three, given verification 06 course, are simply statements of fact.
The fourth and fifth, however, are arguable.
1. That is a cat.
2. A cat is a mammal.
There are no cats native to Antarctica.

4. That cat is malnourished.
5 . Cats are never really domesticated.
3.
Notice that these statements are simple sentences with three parts: a
subject, a linking verb, and something said about the subject. For convenience, we can borrow the grammarian's term and call what is said about
the subject the complement. We can also think of the linking verb and the
complement together as the predicate.
32
. WHAT IS IT?
Subject
Predicate
Linking verb
Complement
A cat
is
a mammal
That cat
is
malnourished
Even if you do not understand the meaning of one of its terms, you can
recognize a similarly constructed sentence like "Football is a homoerotic
ritual" as a statement defining or describing its subject. You should also
recognize this claim as arguable to most audiences. It is by no means a fact,
although a fact could take the same grammatical form:
1. Football is a game played with eleven men on a team.
2. Football is played in the Astrodome.
Fact number 1 is a partial definition of football. Fact number 2 describes

an event that can easily be verified.
All the examples given so far are claims about the nature of things. Such
claims take in a large territory, including facts and arguable statements, but
leaving out questions, commands, wishes, and exclamations. "My dog has
fleas" is a claim about a state of affairs, but "Get off my lap" or "Would
you like to get off my lap?" or "Would that you were off my lap" or "Alas!"
are not.
Claims about the nature of things connect a subject to a predicate in one
of the following ways: The subject is included in the predicate
("Housework is a form of exercise"), has something to do with the predicate ("Love is often an illusion"), or is completely separated from the
predicate ("No Mercury astronauts were scientists").
You Make More Claims Than You Think

Claims about the nature of things do not always come neatly packaged in
subject-linking verb-predicate form like the examples given above. In
common speech and writing we use many other verbs and sentence patterns to assert an all-in, all-out, or partial connection between subjects and
predicates. For example, if you vigorously assert that "Pre-med majors
cheat," you are actually classifying. The claim "Pre-med majors cheat" can
be transformed into "Pre-med majors are cheaters." Strictly speaking, you
are claiming that pre-med majors belong to the class of cheaters.
CLAlMS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THINGS
. 33
Here are some more examples of ordinary sentences, with translations

into subject-linking verb-complement form so that you can see the claims
being made more clearly:
The United States has no
population problem.
The United States is not

a nation with a population
problem. (exclusion)
My roommate eats
compulsively.
My roommate is a
compulsive eater.
(inclusion)
The space program does

not receive enough tax
support.
The space program is

undersupported.
(inclusion)
Obstetricians often
overcharge.
Some obstetricians are

overchargers. (partial
inclusion)
American dance
companies always
go in the red.
No American dance
companies are financial
successes. (exclusion)
As you can see, some of these transformations result in awkward wording.

We certainly do not recommend that you turn every assertion about a class
into subject-linking verb-complement form. That would make for boring,
flabby writing. It is usually much more effective to say "Pre-med majors
cheat" than to write daintily "Pre-med majors are not honest persons." But
learning to recognize a claim about the nature of things when you encounter one will help enormously when you get ready to set up an argument
for it. And the best way to recognize such a claim is to be able to set it up
mentally in subject-linking verb-complement form.
EXERCISE
.-
Transform the following sentences into subject-linking verb-complement

form.
1. Neo-Victorian architecture has taken over in the suburbs.
2. Eastern European countries funnel high technology to the Soviet Union.
3. Menus often lie about the meals they describe.
4.
5.
Right now, the United States has the technology to build space colonies.
Bigfoot doesn't exist.
34
WHAT IS IT?
THE BASIC TACTIC: SUPPORT BY EXANIPLES

An arguable claim about the nature of things can often be thought of as
a generalization that summarizes a collection of particular instances. Thus
you can support such a claim by bringing one or more of those particulars
to your reader's attention. Suppose you want to support a simple assertion
like "My roommate is a slob." Your subject is identified by his relation to
you, and slob has a widely understood meaning. You can go right to examples.
1. There's a half-eaten Big Mac in his desk drawer.
2. A pile of unsorted socks has been sitting on the foot of his bed for
three weeks.
3. He hasn't showered since the beginning of the term three weeks ago.
Maybe slob is too mild a word?
Kinds of Examples
Particular Examples
The examples used to support "My roommate is a slob" are particular.
They describe situations, events, or objects connected with one time, one
place, and, in this case, one person. They are as close as language can come
to real experience. Such particular examples are effective in argument for
just that reason: They create a sharable reality for other eyes and help
readers to an awareness of what inspired your claim in the first place.
Itera five Examples

We can ascend one level of generality, as it were, from the particular
example to the iterative example. The iterative example presents an event
in words that suggest that .'.e event happens often or repeats itself. Wording the example in the present tense is one way to achieve this effect:
I brush my teeth after breakfast.
Putting in a word that suggests repetition is another way to create an

iterative example:
She often hums "0 Sole Mio" while making pizza.
CLAIMS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THINGS
. 35
There are many other possible indicators of iterative examples. They include use of the plural ("Confederate soldiers sang 'Aura Lee' to their
sweethearts"), mention of an unidentified observer ("Anyone on the
Champs Elysees can see the hookers leaning on lampposts"), and use of
a singular subject that stands for a group ("The young New Yorker spends
Saturdays at Bloomingdale's buying leather accessories").
At its best, the iterative example suggests repeated instances while it
creates a specific image. Since a well-written iterative example gives the
reader something to see or sense, it can work as well as a particular example.
In the following paragraph the support (with one exception for you to
find) is entirely in vivid, iterative examples.
My mother is a workaholic. Eight years ago our family decided we needed
extra money so Mom took a teaching job at the local high school. The only
problem with this was, Who was going to do her other work? The answer, Mom.
Mom's day starts at six o'clock in the morning. After feeding the livestock on
the family farm, she retreats to the house to cook the family breakfast. Then
without doing the dishes it's off to school. At four in the afternoon the school
is empty except For the Home Ec. room, where Mom prepares for the next day
of classes. Upon arriving home she cooks a delicious full-course meal. Without
stopping to clean up supper she heads to her garden where she works till dark.
Finally she tackles a sink full of dishes and usually a couple of loads of wash.
And when I went to bed she was hunched over her sewing machine mending
my pants.
Hypothetical Examples
A hypothetical example is fictional, imaginary. The arguer makes it up and
therefore has the luxury of creating details and events and outcomes that
support a claim perfectly. Often the wording of a hypothetical example
will give it away, or the arguer will say specifically that the example
represents an approximation of several individual instances. As such, a
hypothetical example can be like the "averaging of data" that goes on in
science and social science.
However, a hypothetical example is deceptive and basically dishonest
if the arguer conceals its nature and allows readers to believe that the
particulars existed or occurred exactly as constructed. A hypothetical example is obviously only deceptive when it is used in an argument characterizing a particular thing or state of affairs. An arguer who wants to
characterize the nature of something or convince an audience that a certain
state of affairs exists can always support a claim with fabricated examples.
An arguer intent on proving the existence of Bigfoot or flying saucers could
happily invent close encounters.
36
W H A T IS IT?
But there are legitimate uses of hypothetical examples, and we can

recognize them if we distinguish among types of claims as the main sections of this book do. Hypothetical examples are often used to set up an
ideal definition; they are effective in causal arguments to convey how a
causal process works; they can be used in evaluation arguments to construct "what if" situations that clarify the values involved in a real case;
and they can be used in proposal arguments to create scenarios of desirable
or undesirable outcomes. But they should definitely not be used as unqualified supporting evidence in an argument whose purpose is to characterize the world as accurately as possible.
Typicality, or "It's Not the Number of

Examples That Counts"
How many examples does it take to support a claim about the nature of
things? Could one ever be enough? Or does it take three or four or ten?
Actually, no magic number of examples adds up to sufficient support. It's
not the quantity of examples but how you convince an audience of their
typicality that counts. No matter how many specific or iterative instances
you use, if they do not fairly represent what you are claiming, your argument is insufficiently supported. A high-school student body should not
be characterized as "sports crazy" if only 300 out of 3,000 students regularly attend sporting events.
In Chapter 4, where we examine the exact wording of some sample
claims, we will have more to say about the choice of examples for support.
For now, the main point to keep in mind is that behind every example
brought in to support a claim, there must be an assumption, or declaration
or even defense of its typicality.
If typicality is strong enough, even one example will suffice. Consider
the paleontologist who came to the conclusion that some dinosaurs exhibited parenting behavior, a claim that contradicted a prevailing belief that
dinosaurs simply laid their eggs and abandoned them. He had discovered
one eggshell-littered nest containing the remains of fifteen baby dinosaurs.
Since the teeth of these infant hadrosaurs were worn, he reasoned that
food had been brought to them. He then drew the conclusion that a whole
species of dinosaurs cared for their young on the basis of only one example,
one nest of one dinosaur (New York Krnes, February 12, 1980). He could do
so with confidence because we assume great uniformity of behavior among
animals in matters related to their survival; what one animal does in
natural circumstances, other animals of the same species will also do. But
an assumption of typicality this strong cannot be used in generalizing
about human behavior. The behavior of one person is rarely seen as typical
. 37
of all humans, nor is one act always rtpresentative of a person's character.

One half-eaten Big Mac does not make a slob.
"Examples" That Are Not Examples

Writing with particular examples would seem to be natural since experience is always specific. But oddly enough, detailed, specific writing doesn't
come easily. We tend to float away from the particular, past the iterative,
on the way to the general. When we try to turn the process around in
written argument and support the general statement with specific examples, we often come only part of the way down, producing as "examples"
statements that are really lower-level generalizations. Here is a sample
paragraph that supports its characterization with more characterizations
instead of examples.
My friend is irresponsible. She never does anything on time, whether it is
a homework assignment or arriving at a place for a meeting. Moreover, she
doesn't regret being late or feel she should offer any apologies. She doesn't take
care of her possessions, but expects others to do it for her and is upset when
they don't. She doesn't concern herself with plans, and often doesn't carry out
her part in them. She goes places without the money needed for the trip and
relies on others to see she returns. Often she leaves without telling anyone
where she's going or when she'll return.
We can see this paragraph as a series of claims, some of which support

others. If we diagrammed it, showing which supports which, our diagram
might look as follows:
My friend is irresponsible
/
She never does
anything on time
homework
assignments
arriving
at a place
for a
meeting
She doesn't
care for her
possessions
doesn't
regyet
being
late
goes places
without money
and must rely
on others to
see she
returns
She doesn't concern

herself with plans
often leaves
without letting
anyone know where
she's going or when
she'll return
The statements in this diagram fall into a three-tiered hierarchy. At

level 1 is the most general claim being supported. The claims on level 2
38
WHAT IS IT?
amount to a definition of irresponsible, a term that certainly needs clarification that writer and reader can share. To be "irresponsible," according to
this little argument, is never to do anything on time, not to care for one's
possessions, and not to concern oneself with plans. At level 3 are some
suggestions of iterative examples. We know that a sentence like "She goes
places without the money needed for the trip" must be sitting on top of
one or more specific events, like that time your friend took the bus to the
mall, didn't have the fare back, and had to borrow from another friend;
or the time she went to lunch with you and didn't have enough money to
cover her part of the check. Particular events like these led to the generalizations at level 2 that culminated in the overall claim "My friend is irresponsible." These particular events are missing from the paragraph. It is
certainly not "wrong" without details; it does suggest behavior that most
people would consider "irresponsible." But at least some of those particular events should be there for two reasons. First, the writing would be more
lively and therefore more readable, and, second, most readers would find
the argument more convincing if they could share with the writer the
actual evidence, the real events that inspired the characterization.
FOR YOU TO ANALYZE

Examine the following paragraphs. Do the writers get down to examples?
Are the examples iterative or particular?
M y brother is a mathematical genius. He was awarded the New York State
Regents Scholarship with excellence in mathematics and physics. During his
second term at Michigan State University, he was working specifically with the
head of the mathematics department on the derivation of equations dealing
with the fourth dimension. While on summer vacation, he worked for the
Hewlett-Packard Corporation as an inventor of new computer and calculator
programming, under the direction of many doctorates in physics and mathematics.
My sister Laura is a compulsive clothes buyer. Whenever she hears the word
shopping, she is always willing to go. Her five charge accounts at the local
boutiques along with her VISA card enable her to purchase clothing and accessories at her every whim. If you were to tour her townhouse, you would notice
her four large closets, one for each season of the year. Looking through the
closets, you would notice the arrangement according to color from the lightest
yellows to the blacks. You would also notice numerous tags hanging from the
articles which haven't been worn yet.
39
My roommate is an understanding person. She is always around and eager

to help when one needs someone to talk to. She is patient with those that others
cannot be patient with. She does little things for people out of the goodness of
her heart. She is the type of girl that others gravitate toward because of her
sympathetic attitude. I don't believe she even knows the definition of a fairweather friend.
Occasionally, if examples in a series are obviously connected, it is not

necessary to state the generalization they support. Readers will formulate
it for themselves. Read through the following paragraphs and supply the
missing claims.
Outdoor magazines, including the Japanese edition of Field and Strram, are hot.
More than 2,000 camping and sports-equipment stores have opened, 10 times
the number of a decade ago, and they're doing a land-office business in rugged
wilderness gear: hiking boots, fishing rods, safari jackets, cowboy hats. The Japan
Spark Industry News estimates sales of outdoor goods will total $1.5 billion this
year, nearly twice as much as four years ago. And that doesn't include sales of
such things as vacation homes and log houses (boom industries in themselves),
or macho four-wheel-drive vehicles (sales of which have nearly tripled over the
last six years).
-"Japan: The Ca!l of the Wild,"
Newswe~k
"We just feel it's time for a change."

Larry Bowa has heard those fateful words, and as of Saturday, he was no
longer manager of the San Diego Padres. Chuck Tanner got the word on the
evening of May 22, and now he is no longer managing the Atlanta Braves. A
similar firing line was given to Mike Keenan of the NHL Philadelphia Flyers on
May 11, Jacques Martin of the St. Louis Blues on May 17 and John Wetzel of
the NBA Phoenix Suns on May 3. In addition, Jean Perron of the Montreal
Canadiens resigned under pressure on May 16, and K.C. Jones confirmed on
May 22 that he would not coach the Boston Celtics next season.
-"Another
lllustrat~d
One Bites the Dust," Sports
Here are the generalizations missing from the above paragraphs. How
similar to the originals were the ones you made up?
1. Countless Japanese, it seems, are closet Marlboro men.
2. These changes turned the merry month of May into a sort of Canned
Festival for skippers.
40
WHAT IS IT?
FOR YOU TO WRITE

Write a paragraph in which you support a generalization about a person
you know with both iterative and particular examples. Its thesis sentence
should follow the formula "My -(a relative, friend, boss, etc.) is a
." Your purpose is to convince someone who doesn't know the
person to share your characterization.
Analyzing Statements
About the Nature
of Things
Let's say you have formulated an arguable claim about the nature of
something. How can you get a sense of what you need to do to support
it for your audience? A useful method of attack is to take it apart, to look
at the subject by itself, the predicate by itself, and then the relationship
between them. Generally, subjects vary in level of abstraction and in
number, and predicates vary in how much definition an audience needs.
Thus, you can get a sense of what you have to do to support your claim
by looking at subjects and predicates separately.
SUBJECTS
Once you have your claim in subject-linking verb-complement form, you
can easily identify the subject. Subjects range from the individual (my cat
Fido), through the many (the cats in my neighborhood), to the all (every
cat), and from the concrete (Susan) to the abstract (humanity). Sometimes
your audience will immediately recognize your subject (the White House).
Other times, however, you will need to clarify, define, or even defend what
you mean (Manicheism).
The following scheme covers possible classifications that your subject
42
WHAT IS IT?
could fall into. Match your subject to a category to find out the special
problems it generates.
Single Subjects
A claim with a single subject makes an assertion about a single thing. ("My
Chippendale sofa is probably a fake"), a single individual ("Whoever
copied this manuscript was an apprentice scribe"), or a single entity ("The
Supreme Court is always constructionist").
A single subject must be identified for any audience that would not
recognize it immediately. Individual people are often subjects for generalizations because we like to categorize; we understand people by placing
them in preexisting categories. Obviously, anyone who reads your argument should understand what individual you are writing about. So unless
your subject is a famous person, you may have to identify him or her in
a sentence or phrase: "Lindsay, my roommate, is a liar." "Affirmed, the
horse that won the Triple Crown in 1978, was overtrained."
Abstractions
An abstraction is something you cannot put your hands on easily. Ask
anyone to show you freedom, business, the national interest, or an energy
crisis. Someone explaining "energy crisis," for example, might point to a
block-long line at a gas station. But others might show you their fuel bills
over the last few wintersor their new wood stoves. And that is just the
point: An abstraction is an umbrella that can shelter a number of different
examples. Here are some claims with abstractions as subjects:
1. Organized athletics is expanding.
2. Papal infallibility is a much-contested doctrine.
3. Representative government is time-consuming.
4. Socialism has never existed in pure form.
5. Happiness is everyone's goal.
Let us go through these claims one at a time and examine the problems
that their abstract subjects introduce. At this point we will concentrate on
the subjects and ignore what is said about them in the predicates.
"Organized athletics" is a large umbrella term, potentially covering
everything but a chance meeting of five people in a playground who get
up a spontaneous game of touch football. It can include sports from Little
League baseball to the World Cup soccer playoffs, from intramurals to the
ANALYZING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THINGS
. 43
Olympics. If you really want to say something convincing about organized

athletics in general, you should draw your examples from several categories or levels of participation. However, you might find it more convenient,
as well as more honest, to replace the large abstraction with a more modest
term that fits your examples better. For instance, if your examples are
limited to intramurals, perhaps your proposition should read "Intramural
sports are expanding." "Intramural sports" is still an abstraction, standing
for a number of sports like football, baseball, and volleyball, but at least
it is not an umbrella that will carry you away in the wind.
"Papal infallibility" is a technical term. It does not mean that everything
the pope says is infallible. Some people misunderstand it that way, which
is precisely why the term needs to be defined for any audience except one
familiar with Roman Catholic dogma. Here is an authoritative definition:
According to the Vatican Council of 1870, the pope is infallible only when
he speaks ex cathedra ("from the throne"), defining matters of faith and
morals. All such technical abstractions, whether they come from religion,
nuclear physics, or plumbing, will have to be defined for all but specialized
audiences.
"Representative government" is a term with enormous problems lurking behind it. Let's just take the wordgovernment first. When you read the
word government your first response may be to think of national government, but the term can refer to an ordering system at any level, from
committee meeting to town meeting to union local meeting. If the word
represetztative is used to modify government, it means that the governing system is operated by deputies, or agents of the governed. According to that
broad definition, virtually all nations have some form of "representative
government."
Obviously, too many particulars can fit under the umbrella "representative government," so you have to decide how you are going to use the term.
You might decide to use no examples and generalize about the nature of
representative government: "The very nature of representative government is such that it requires constant dialogue between represented and
representative; this back and forth process is time-consuming." But with
no examples you risk being accused of not talking about the real world.
You can carefully select examples from all levels of representative government: a PTA committee, a corporate board, a city council, a state legislature, the French Parkment, the United Nations General Assembly. Here you
risk boring your reader with needless repetition.
You can let your sense of the length appropriate to your audience stop
you at an arbitrary number of examples: two from your experience of
student government, one from a newspaper article on delay in state assembly committees. Here you risk the charge of insufficient support unless you
can convince your reader that your examples are compellingly typical.
You may discover a natural coherence in the examples that come to
44
WHAT IS IT?
mind. First, they may all have to do with the United States Congress's
waste of time. In that case, you can go back and revise your thesis. It might
now read "The United States Congress wastes time."
Or you can keep the more generally worded thesis by asserting that all
the examples from this level (in this case national government) are typical
of every other level.
The point is that when you are working with an abstraction as broad
as "representative government," you have to select a strategy for talking
about it specifically. Fortunately, a good sense of your audience will constrain your selection. You can build on what your audience understands
by "representative government" and use examples it is likely to be familiar
with.
The word socialism poses similar problems. What is socialism? Do you
mean Fabian socialism? Proudhon's socialism? Utopian socialism? The
kind of government practiced in Sweden? In Great Britain? In the United
States? You must settle on a definition of this term, which has many
possible meanings. Naturally, you will choose a definition that helps your
argument by emphasizing the attributes of socialism essential to your case.
For a claim like "Socialism has never existed in pure form," you will define
"socialism" in such a way that no actual socialist government will measure
up as an instance of "pure" socialism.
"Happiness" is an enormous abstraction. Everyone, from Aristotle to
Freud, has agreed that happiness is desirable, but any particular person will
have his or her own definition of what constitutes happiness. Nevertheless,
if you want to argue about a grand philosophical abstraction like happiness, you will have to construct a suitably broad definition, and you will
be in good company if you try: "Happiness is the ultimate good" (St.
Augustine). "Happiness is the health, beauty, and well being of the soul"
(Socrates). "Happiness is the absence of neurosis" (Sigmund Freud). "Happiness is virtue." "Happiness is peace of mind."
As the subjects of arguable propositions, all these abstractions, from
"organized athletics" to "happiness," require definition. Before you can go
on to say something about them in an argument, you have to stake out an
area of reality.
Plural Subjects
Subjects with Definite Numbers
The subject of a claim about the nature of things can certainly be more than
a single individual or idea. It can be a set with a definite number of
members, and the claim can assert something about all of them.
ANALYZING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE NATURE O F THINGS
45
1. This year's Eland and Biarritz are designed in the German tradition.
2. Three of the basic courses offered in chemistry are aimed at students
who have taken AP high-school chemistry.

3 . Eighteen states are overrepresented in Congress.
4. The seven liberal arts are still the core of education.
If the definite number is small, your argument must consider each member
of the set individually. In example 1above, a reader would expect both car
models to be discussed separately. Why else did you specify them? The
three chemistry courses you are characterizing demand separate attention,
and most readers would think it strange if you talked about six of the
liberal arts and left out the seventh. The common-sense rule is that when
you have a subject with a small, definite number of members, mention
each of them.
However, a large definite number in the subject, as in example 3 above,
gives rise to different problems. In a brief argument you would not be able
to give each unit separate attention, so you must adopt a strategy for
covering them all. You can at least name all the members to satisfy your
reader's curiosity, but you might seize on two or three of the set, discuss
them in detail, and treat them as typical, standing for the whole set. What
is true about those few must hold for the rest. If, for example, you were
arguing for claim 3 above in a brief essay, you might discuss only three
states individually-Delaware,
Wyoming, and Alaska-assuring your
readers that those three states were typical of the eighteen. However, if
you were arguing in the House of Representatives, where action could be
taken against these eighteen states, you would certainly have to argue each
case individually. Too much is at stake, so no shortcuts would be acceptable.
Another tactic at your disposal is to classify your set into smaller groups,
each of which you would treat as complete and separate. The set of eighteen states, for example, might be divided into three groups: the old, tiny
colonies; the big, empty westerns; and the noncontiguous newcomers. You
would name all the members in each group, but when you came up with
the attributes that link the members to the predicate, "overrepresented,"
you would talk about the group as a unit.
Subjects with Indefinite Numbers

When we argue about the nature of things we often refer to some but nof aN
of a group. We use an indefinite plural like some or many when we know
that the predicate doesn't hold for all the possible members of the subject,
but we don't know or can't know how many it does hold for. For instance,
46
. WHAT IS IT?
we may know that it would be incorrect to say "All students at Middle

Northwestern State need guidance counseling," yet we cannot say that
precisely 837 or 1,437 need guidance counseling. So we settle on a rough
approximation like "Many students at Middle Northwestern State need
guidance counseling." We have the following indefinite number markers
at our disposal to suggest shades of proportion, ranging from a few isolated
members of a set to nearly all:
a couple
a few
several
few
a number
some
many
a lot
a large proportion
most
not all
We can also use adverbs as indefinite quantifiers:

rarely
occasionally
sometimes
frequently
often
always
Oddly enough, these indefinite markers can be ordered in relation to one

another almost like numbers. Let's consider separately the most common
markers and what an argument for a proposition modified by one of them
means.
This term is just a step away from a specified number. It stands
for a small number and is used in written argument when a specific number
is inaccessible, inappropriate, or unnecessary. We usually do not formulate
claims with precise numbers in anything but scientific or technical writing.
A FEW
FEW
Can you sense a difference between these two propositions?
1. Few newspapers in this country are organs of political ideology.

2. A few newspapers in this country are organs of political ideology.
The second, with "a few" modifying the subject, requires in support a
series of examples of newspapers that fit the predicate. You would make
a case for perhaps two or three or four separate newspapers. But the first
statement has a completely different meaning and would require quite
different support. When you write "Few newspapers in this country are
. 47
organs of political ideology," you say, in effect, "Isn't it surprising that

most are not?" In fact, you may not even mention, let alone demonstrate,
your claim that a few are organs of political points of view; your attention
may be devoted to the "most" that are not.
We might even say that few and most are cordlaries; a claim about "few"
may imply the opposite claim about "most."
1. Few clergymen are criminals. / Most are law abiding.
2. Few young people know what to do with their lives. / Most are in
a state of career confusion.

3. Few women reach executive positions. / Most remain on the lower
rungs of the corporate ladder.
In an actual argument you can support one or the other or both of these
pairs of propositions, depending on which your audience needs to hear
about and which you have the evidence for.
SOME
1. Some of the homeless are unemployable.

2 . Some meteorites are really pieces of Mars.
3. Some supermarkets are really discount department stores.
4. Some bodybuilders are narcissists.
Some is a safe adjective in argument. You can use it when you have a
number of examples that fit your case but no way or need to assess what
proportion of the whole that number represents. For instance, you may
know of four or five homeless people who have been looking for jobs for
years. You assume your sample is representative, but have no idea what
proportion of all the homeless it represents. If you pursue your research,
you might find an estimate of how many homeless there are in an area, but
you still would not know what proportion of them fit your category
"unemployable." So you stay with the safe word some.
Many means more than some and thus makes a stronger claim. Many
is still indefinite, but it suggests more examples, and therefore a greater
proportion of the whole, than some does. Notice the difference between the
following two assertions. (These are arguable because people disagree
about what constitutes integration and even about what is or is not a
suburb.)
MANY
48
. WHAT IS IT?
1. Some suburbs around Chicago are integrated.
2. Many suburbs around Chicago are integrated.
Most readers would interpret the second statement as a stronger claim than
the first.
How is that bolder claim of "many" supported in an argument? Do you
need six examples instead of three, ten instead of five? Actually, a "many"
argument may use the same number of examples as a "some" argument.
But there is a greater assumption of typicality behind these examples and,
thus, the reader is asked to take a bigger leap between example and proposition in the "many" argument.
In written argument, most usually stands for more than half, often
much more than half. In fact, a "most" proposition may even be a cautious
"all." For example, if you claim that "Most chows [a kind of dog] are
vicious," you may not know a single example to the contrary, and yet you
hesitate to say "All chows are vicious." Someone, you admit, may own a
sweet-tempered chow, although you doubt it. Thus, prefacing your proposition with most is a way of protecting yourself against overstatement. A
statement about "all" chows could be disproved by one contrary example,
but a statement about "most" chows could survive an exception. The
"most" statement may be more honest as well, for our experience rarely
takes in all the possible members of a set.
What does a "most" statement require in the way of examples? Once
again, you may use the same number of examples you used for a "some"
or "many" argument. But the difference in a "most" argument is your
stronger assumption that your examples are typical of the whole. For
example, you have no reason to believe that the chows that bit you were
in any way unusual; they had different kinds of owners and led different
kinds of lives in different places, so you use them as "typical" examples
to support a proposition about "most" chows.
How do you argue the "typicality" of your examples? A new tactic is
called for in a "most" argument-an appeal to the essence or defining
characteristics of a thing. (Here we anticipate the distinctive tactic of the
"all" argument coming up.) Let's take the chow argument as an example.
Chows are a breed of dog, and we assume that members of a breed share
similar characteristics, both physical and temperamental. Therefore, it follows that any individual chow will approximate the type of the breed, and
if chows are characteristically vicious, then examples of vicious chows are
believably typical. Why, then, don't you say "All chows are vicious"?
Because you know that any individual can vary more or less from the type.
MOST
. 49
You may speculate that when Aunt Sylvia's chow becomes arthritic and
toothless, it may also become benign.
ALL
1. Ail generalizations are false, including this one.

2. All unions are labor monopolies.
3. All pit bulls are vicious.
4. All the stockholders are supporters of the new president.
5. All Woody Allen movies are funny.
6. Every snowflake is different.
An "all" statement is called a univrrsal because it makes an assertion
about all the members of a set-every single one, no exceptions. You may
think that to argue for such a statement requires a complete counting and
accounting for every member of a set. That is, if you wanted to make any
kind of statement about "all" U.S. senators, you would have to investigate
all 100. And you may also think that your argument would be convincing
only if you piled up more examples than you would use to support any
other kind of statement.
Actually, that is not so. It is true that if you have a very small set, readily
accessible, you must examine each member in order to make a generalization about "all." For example, if you claim that "All the committee members are bigots," and the committee has only six members, you certainly
must account for each. You may also use some of the grouping techniques
that we talked about under "definite numbers."
But all is not reserved for small countable groups. You can use it even
when you don't know how large a set you are talking about because you
have a different technique of argument at your disposal. No piling up of
examples will suffice, nor any extended description of one typical example.
Instead, you must define your subject in such a way that what you say
about it in the predicate is one of its necessary attributes, not just an
accidental or temporary property. That is, the subject by its very nature
must include the predicate. If you can make that connection, if you can
define the subject so that it is convincingly bound with the predicate, then
the connection must hold for all the set's members. The number of examples then becomes irrelevant, although you should never omit them; they
are used as illustration, added touches for clarification and persuasion.
Let's see how support for an "all" statement worked for a proposition
that the Federal Aviation Administration acted on in 1979: "All DC-lo's
[a kind of wide-bodied jet] are unsafe." O n Wednesday, June 6, 1979, the
50
WHAT IS IT?
FAA suspended the design certificate of the DC-10 and grounded all 138
in use in the United States. How the FAA came around to making this
universal claim, a conclusion called "extreme and unwarranted" by the
plane's builders, is a fascinating example of the technique required to
support an "all" statement.
The FAA began to investigate DC-lo's after one dropped an engine at
take-off in Chicago, causing a crash that killed more than 270 people.
There were 138 DC-lo's in use at the time-a large but by no means
unmanageable number, considering the resources of the FAA. The FAA
did in fact inspect every single American DC-10. But total investigation
did not lead to the generalization "All DC-lo's are unsafe." In fact, after
that initial inspection the planes were allowed to fly again. Not until
continued inspection of the planes revealed cracks in several engine
mounts that had had no cracks just a few days before were the planes
grounded. With the evidence of cracks in only a few planes, the FAA felt
that it had evidence of a basic flaw in the structure of all the planes,
specifically in the engine mounts. Since the FAA assumed that all DC-lo's
were essentially the same, that flaw, and its potential consequences, had
to exist in all of them. Therefore, the FAA concluded that all DC-lo's were
unsafe by their Very nafwre. The FAA decided that the flawed engine mount
was a design defect and therefore a "necessary attribute" of all DC-lo's,
not just the accidental attribute of a few that might have been improperly
built or serviced.
Look again at the process that went on here. Inspection of all 138 planes
yielded no conclusion. Yet when cracks that should not have been there
appeared in just a few planes, cracks that resembled one in the engine
mount of the plane that crashed, FAA officials believed a universal conclusion was justified based on evidence about the very nature of the plane.
Since "unsafe" means that the possibility of an accident exists, and all
DC-lo's seemed td have a design defect that made an accident likely, an
argument joining "all DC-lo's" and "unsafe" was possible.
HOW DO UNIVERSALS APPEAR IN

WRITTEN ARGUMENT?
Formal universals seldom appear in ordinary writing, perhaps because our
natural caution prevents us from thumping down with an all. But that does
not mean that we never argue for universals. We certainly do, but we are
likely to phrase them inconspicuously, without using all. Often we use a
collective noun or a plural noun with no quantifier in front of it, so our
universals look like the following:
51
1. Coastal wetlands are a renewable resource.

2. Man is a beast to man.
3. Farmers are landscape architects.
4. Ballet dancers are athletes.
Whenever we generalize without specifying some, most, few, or many, we

imply all. The naked subject stands for the entire set, and this sort of tacit
universal is common in both speech and writing. We are likely to slip into
a tacit universal when we want emphasis or when not much is at stake in
an argument. Most of us probably would not recognize our own state of
uncertainty about exactly how strong our claim is unless someone challenged us. Then we would either admit exceptions ("Well, I don't mean
all") or stand our ground and make the necessary definition argument.
The thesis of' an argument is often expressed as a tacit universal, but as
a writer you should not be confused about what you mean. If you really
mean RII, you must be prepared to support your proposition i n s t h e way
described above if it might be challenged. If you do not, you may need to
take account of qualifications and exceptions.
SET MAKING IN THE SUBJECT

Another way of constructing a universal statement also avoids the word
all. Instead of making a grandiose claim, the creative arguer puts together
a carefully limited subject that can be treated as a universal. This setmaking faculty comes naturally; it is not a dishonest evasion of an all, but
a sensible narrowing down of the subject of an argument. You probably
make statements in this form every day:
I. People who run more than ten miles a day are running away from
something.
2. Movies made of vignettes are not popular.
3. Neighborhoods made up of old apartment houses and small stores
are inhabited by recent immigrants.
4. Television news programs that originate in small towns are bloodthirsty.
Here the problems of arguing for a universal are partially solved because
you have created a more limited, manageable set in the subject. In most
cases, as in all the examples above, you do not even need to define the
subject further. The narrowing down of the subject is the definition and
you can go right to supporting evidence. But remember that whenever you
52 = WHAT IS IT?
have a universal, you must convincingly link the predicate with the subject.
EXERCISES
Here is a list of tacit universals. Decide how you would argue for them,
whether you would treat them as true universals or qualify them in any
way.
1. Politicians lie about their pasts.
2. Violinists love their instruments.
3. Aubrey Beardsley's drawings are decadent.
4. Horror movies are sexist.
5. Walt Disney movies are all-American.

6 . TV talk shows fulfill their stations' public interest broadcasting require-
ments.
7. Dogs are sensitive to their owners' feelings.
FOR YOU TO WRITE

1.We assume that you are in a class of about twenty students. Settle
on a topic that is a current controversy. (Or each student in the class can
take a different controversial topic.) Now interview three of your fellow
students, formulate a suitably modified claim (e.g., with few, some, many,
most) that characterizes your entire class's attitude toward this issue, and
write a paragraph supporting it. How confident are you in making this
generalization? Now interview seven more for a total of ten, half the class.
Will the wording of your claim change now that it is based on a bigger
sample? Next interview the rest of your class, so that you know the
attitude of every individual. Now write another paragraph. How does it
differ from the first?
2 . Write sets of paragraphs supporting similar claims to various degrees.
For example: "Some college students like classical music." "Many college
students like country and western music." "Most college students like rock
music." Or, "Some current movies are .
Many current movies are
.
Most current movies are .
" Or, "Some students are
(interested in, indifferent to, well informed about) foreign affairs."
I, I ,
I,
I,
53
foreign affairs." "Most students are -"Many students are

foreign affairs." Or, "Blind dates are occasionally .
" "Blind dates are
,,
often .
" "Blind dates are usually
PREDICATES
The predicate is what we say about the subject, but we cannot categorize
predicates the way we can subjects. In general, predicates function differently in the statements they appear in according to the audience addressed;
they make the difference between a fact and a highly controversial statement. Although the gradations between fact and arguable statement are
often too fine for classification, you can get an idea of the relative differences if you think of statements on a continuum, a gradient from the
factual to the very arguable.
Fact
1. A l l senators are members of Congress.
A member of Congress sits in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. So, by definition, senators belong to the larger class of members
of Congress.
2. Nematodes are parasites.
Parasites are organisms that live off host organisms, usually to the host's
detriment. Nematodes live off mammals; they are, therefore, parasites.
3 . The brontosaurus is extinct.
Has one been seen lately? The word extinct is readily understood and 4
billion people verify the extinction of the brontosaurus every day. The
support obviously depends on lack of physical evidence.
4. Some tropical fish are live bearers.
If you had an audience that was interested, you could go on to inform
them of what they might be unaware of, perhaps by listing individual
live-bearing species.
Arguable
5 . My roommate is sloppy.
This characterization can be supported by examples alone because most
people agree on what constitutes sloppy behavior. The definition of sloppy
can, in fact, be taken for granted and not even explicitly stated. You
54
. WHAT IS IT?
wouldn't even argue this one in words if you could take your audience to
your room.
6 . The eastern mountain lion is extinct.
This claim would not be arguable if the absence of physical evidence
were as clear-cut as it is for the brontosaurus. But experts disagree about
whether the rare photograph of a whiskered, catlike face in the bushes or
the plaster cast of a footprint are signs of the mountain lion's continued
existence in the eastern United States. As long as there is disagreement
over evidence, there is argument.
7. George Washington was an innovative president.
Although this statement is arguable, you probably wouldn't get an
argument about it. This is the kind of statement we readily give nodding
acceptance to, perhaps because we have heard it so often. However, the
term innovative has no fixed meaning, and it might be possible to find one
ornery historian who defines "innovative" in such a way as to exclude
Washington.
8 . M a n y cornrnunity colleges are fheir towns' only real educational institutions.
Arguable because of that term in the predicate. What is a real educational institution as opposed to other kinds? You might begin to argue
for this proposition by first defining a "real educational institution" as
one where voluntary rather than coerced education goes on. No one is
required by law to go to a community college so it is the only place for
"real" education in many towns. The word real is a favorite, and it always signals an appeal to an ideal definition. Undoubtedly, in completing
an argument for this proposition, you would include one extended or
several briefer examples to show these "real educational institutions" in
action.
9. Calvin Coolidge was an innovative president.
This one is arguable, and much more so than the proposition about
Washington. There will be some resistance to this claim from the average
American reader who is not used to hearing positive characterizations of
Coolidge-or is not used to hearing about Coolidge at all. The ornery
historian who supports this one will have to construct a definition of
"innovative" that fits the facts about Coolidge's administration.
10. Most senators' spouses are members of Congress too.
Obviously, this proposition is not meant to be taken literally, as is the
claim "All senators are members of Congress." You cannot be a member
of Congress if you haven't been elected one. But it does have a point. To
say that the spouses of senators are "members of Congress" is a figurative
way of describing their campaigning, speech making, and lobbying at
cocktail parties. This claim will need a number of examples of active
ANALYZING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE NATURE O F THINGS
55
spouses, and the few inactive ones might be mentioned to dramatize the
involvement of the majority.
Very Arguable
11. 'Slave life was a largely successful struggle for spiritual as well as physical
survival.
"
This claim comes from a New York Times book review. It presents a
positive definition of slavery, one designed to replace the more common
understanding of slavery as an unrelieved horror. It is qualified by the
largely, but still makes a sweeping claim for slave life as both spiritual and
physical survival. What are physical and spiritual survival? What are their
signs? A thorough argument for this one, with careful definitions and
well-documented examples, took a whole book.
12. High-school athletic programs are parasitic.
Unlike the fact about nematodes, this proposition with a similar predicate invites a new look at a familiar phenomenon. This imaginative linking-who would think of an athletic program as a parasite?-can lead to
a new insight. If we think of the essential nature of a parasite as an
organism that bleeds its host of vitality, we can see how a high-school
athletic program can metaphorically drain the school system that feeds it.
13. A l l lies, under all circumstunces, are morally wrong.
Very arguable and very difficult. This is a universal claim, and an emphasized one at that, which allows for no exceptions. Furthermore, it is a
statement that few people would go along with. If you were arguing for
this one, you could not hope to deal with all the possible situations where
someone might think lying justified. You might attempt to categorize these
situations and refute them, but ultimately your argument will not be
supported by examples. It will have to rest on a pure ethical definition that
disdains consequence.
We have ordered the continuum above with a general contemporary
American audience in mind. With a more specific audience in mind, we
might have ordered it a bit differently, putting 7 before 6 , or whatever. But
you get the idea: Given the same audience, propositions differ in their
arguability depending on the nature of the claim they make. Our concluding advice is that you put any proposition you want to argue for on an
imaginary continuum and assess its arguability. Given your audience, your
claim, the available support, and what's at stake (the exigence), will you
have an uphill battle?
56
WHAT IS IT?
EXER USES
Rank these propositions i n order of arguability for a n audience of your
classmates. W o u l d a n older person rank t h e m differently for a n audience
of his o r her peers?
1. Many women are workaholics.
2 . Women are inferior to men in their ability to reason abstractly.
3. Women who work have maladjusted children.
4. Some women are mathematical geniuses.
5. Women instinctively love children.
N o w rank these.
1. Some men are mathematical geniuses.
2. Men are superior to women in their ability to reason abstractly.
3. Men instinctively love children.

4. Men who work have maladjusted children.
5. Many men are workaholics.
Here are some subjects. W h a t can you say a b o u t t h e m ?

1. People who build solar houses are .
2. Men who wear earrings are -.
3. High-school girls who chew gum are -.
4. Baseball bats made of aluminum are -.

5. High schools that give awards for academic excellence are
Assess t h e resistance a n audience of your classmates would raise t o t h e

following statements. Does arguability depend o n h o w t h e predicate is
defined?
1. Few Iranians have TV sets.
2. Few Merit scholarships actually provide financial aid.
3 . The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.
-Henry David Thoreau
4. The business of America is business.
5. The moon landing was a hoax.

6 . Most small businesses are begun by recent immigrants.
7. Some apparitions are real.

8. UFOs land on earth frequently.
. 57
9. Local television news programs are violent.

10. A true university is a collection of books.
FOR YOU TO WRITE

1.Formulate two characterizations of the same subject. With an audience
of fellow students in mind, decide which of the two is more arguable,
which needs more support. Write a short argument supporting each.
2. From the exercises above choose a claim you disagree with. Write an
argument supporting its negative.

Examples: Women do not instinctively love children.
The mass of men do not lead lives of quiet desperation.
The Essential Definition
If you look back at the continuum of claims in Chapter 4, you will notice
that definition becomes critical just when the propositions become really
arguable, from example 8 on. And that's just the point: The more definition
the predicate needs-and how much always depends on your audiencethe more arguable the proposition.
Earlier, we talked about subjects needing definition or explanation
before an argument could proceed. That's a sort of ground clearing before
the major construction can get under way. But when we talk about predicates needing definition, we are talking about a foundation absolutely
necessary to the building of an argument supporting a claim about the
nature of things.
Let's demonstrate this point with the following simple little argument.
My roommate is a slob. His bedspread hangs two inches lower at the foot
of his bed than at the head. His desk blotter is off center, and what's more,
there's an ink stain on the upper right-hand corner. One of the books on his
shelf has a piece of paper sticking out of it, and the spare thumbtacks on his
bulletin board don't line up evenly across the bottom. Even more disgusting, he
does his laundry only twice a week, and he actually failed to brush his teeth
after lunch today.
Does this series of examples convince you of the claim that "My roommate
is a slob"? Obviously, the person who wrote this paragraph has a definition
THE ESSENTIAL DEFINITION
. 59
of slob in mind that is nothing like the commonly accepted definition. It

might pass in a military academy, but nowhere else. If the writer of this
quirky paragraph were backed into a corner and asked for his definition
of slob, he might straighten his collar and declare, "A slob is anyone who
does not meet my high standards of order and cleanliness." But even if he
puts this definition into his argument, at the head of his examples, few
readers would be convinced that the roommate is a slob according to the
common meaning of the word. This writer's depnition is too personal, too
idiosyncratic. He does not have an argument so much as a demonstration
of his own taste. Our "slob" example has two morals:
1. If the definition of your predicate is at all critical to your argument,
put it in.
2 . Never state or even imply a definition that your audience could not
share without first arguing for that definition itself.
WHEN THE DEFINITION DOES NOT

HAVE TO APPEAR
When your audience readily accepts the definition of the key predicate in
your argument, you will not need to make that definition explicit. Your
audience's inclination to agree will probably not be damaged by the omission. But then again there is usually not much at stake in arguments where
explicit definition is unnecessary. Such readily acceptable claims are not
likely to require an extended written argument. They are the stuff of
conversation, or perhaps of paragraphs in longer arguments.
1. Adrian is a liar.
2. My uncle is a cheapskate.
3. Weightlifting is a strenuous activity.

4. Driving on interstates is nerve wracking.
Arguments for these simple claims could go right to examples because

all the predicates have relatively obvious meanings to most audiences. A
"liar" is someone who intends an untruth; a "cheapskate" won't spend his
or her money; a "strenuous activity" is one that would make most people
tired; and a "nerve wracking" experience is upsetting and trying. These
one-line definitions need not even appear in your argument, although it
would not hurt if they did.
Although you can argue for such claims without explicitly defining the
predicate, the predicate is in a sense defined by the examples, both specific
and iterative, you use, or by any words with meanings related to or synon-
60
WHAT IS IT?
ymous with the predicate. For instance, if you are writing about driving
on interstates, your paragraph might look like the following.
iterative
iterative
Driving on an interstate is nerve wracking. When you miss an exit

on an interstate, you drive 20 miles or more to the next one, wasting both
time and gas. That happened to me once on the way to Pittsburgh. I
panicked when I had to read a map, make a quick decision, and drive at
55 in heavy traffic at the same time. I knew I wanted Exit 35, but I was
confused by a sign proclaiming two exit 35's, one north and one south.
Undecided, I took a wild guess and was wrong. And, how often, when
driving on an interstate, have you looked in your rearview mirror and
seen the enormous grill of a semi-trailer tailgating you down a hill at 65?
The absence of an explicit definition of nerve wracking would not bother

most readers here because the examples so clearly define the term as most
people use it. What makes this paragraph an argument, although an unchallenging one, rather than a statement of personal feeling, are the iterative examples. They are worded "at" readers, reminding them of their own
similar experiences that confirm the writer's claim. Furthermore, words
like panicked, confused, and undecided clearly refer to the predicate term, constantly pointing the evidence back to nerve wracking.
Remember that you can leave out explicit definition only when your
evidence fits the most common meaning of the predicate term. You could
not include an example like the following in the "nerve wracking" paragraph.
When you drive on the interstate, you go mile after weary mile, staring at
lane markers, while the landscape repeats itself again and again, like the background in a cartoon.
This example does not fit most people's definition of nerve wracking. Perhaps
it does better for monotonous. If you could explain how monotony can be
nerve wracking, you might be able to fit it in, but you would have to make
that explanation an explicit part of your argument.
Examples of other predicate terms that might not need definition are
words like educational, creative, and neurotic. While such words are baggy
monsters with large areas of meaning, they do have general meanings that
are known to everyone who knows the language. Educational means "something you learn from." It can describe anything from burning your finger
to reading Aristotle; with a little imagination, you can apply it to any
human experience. Creative describes someone who makes things that are
innovative in some way. Even though this meaning is vague, not just any
example of making something would support a claim with creative in it.
Making hamburgers is not creative, but inventing a new pit6 may be.
Similarly, neurotic may or may not have a precise clinical meaning; ask any
. 61
two psychologists to define neurotic behavior and you may witness a

first-class argument. But for a general audience, neurotic describes any kind
of habitually odd behavior not quite serious enough to institutionalize a
person. In informal writing, terms like neurotic are used casually and only
their general meanings are intended. But in certain fields such terms may
have quite precise meanings.
Insiders' Words
It is always the audience that determines the arguer's need to define. To
illustrate this point we can look at some slang terms likegerk, airhead, preppy,
and nerd. These words have very clear meanings to some people. If one
high-school student said to another, "Jason is a nerd," no explanation
would be necessary. But if that student characterized Jason in the same
way to his great-aunt Tillie, she would probably ask, "A what?" Aunt
Tillie needs a definition because she does not know high-school slang.
Slang, by its very nature, is the private language of a group; when that
language is carried outside its group, it must be defined.
Scientists, scholars, lawyers, and bureaucrats all use the "slang," or
jargon, of their professions, terms that have very precise meanings for
them though not for outsiders. When they argue with one another, they
can use these terms freely without defining them (as long as the definition
itself is not at stake). Literary critics can debate happily about Bildungsroman,
rhetoricians about tagmemic theory, art historians about mannerism, and
biochemists about allostery. But as soon as they address the uninitiated,
they must translate their terms.
Without Definition, You Risk Circular Argument

What happens when your readers will not understand or not readily share
the meaning of the words you use in the predicate of your claim? They read
through a set of examples that supposedly link up subject with predicate.
By the time they finish, they can define the predicate, but only in terms
of the examples they have just read. Suppose you read through the following paragraph, not knowing the meaning of the slang term preppy.
My roommate is preppy. Brenda is a nice girl, and we get along well, but she
certainly is preppy. She usually wears Docksiders or L.L. Bean ducks. Monograms and brand names appear conspicuously on her clothes; her pink Lacoste
shirts have alligators above the pockets, her green Shetland sweaters have her
three initials embroidered in the center, and her leather purses have Aigner
horseshoes. When she wears all these things together, she looks like a very
preppy girl.
62
WHAT IS IT?
By the time you finish reading this, you have a pretty good idea what
some of the characteristics of a preppy person are. But are you convinced
that Brenda is preppy, which is the point of the whole little argument? The
only way you could be-if you didn't know the definition of preppy beforehand-would
be if you accepted the circular argument, which goes as
follows:
Brenda is preppy.
What is.preppy?
But without some external point of reference for the predicate term, how
can you know you are not being fooled? How can you know the examples
adequately define the term?
We are tempted to tell you always to define your predicates as a matter
of intellectual honesty. But if we did that, we would be misrepresenting
the way things are usually, casually done, even in written argument. It
would be absurd to dash off a little article on "Art festivals are fun" (not
very arguable to most audiences) and preface it with an eight-part dictionary definition of fun. But remember, you can dispense with definition only
when not much is at stake in an argument and your terms are thoroughly
acceptable to your audience.
FOR YOU TO WRITE

Write a paragraph supporting a claim about the nature of things with a
predicate that does not need definition for an audience of students. What
changes would you have to make for an audience of parents?
Example: Many students "veg out" on weekends.
WHEN THE DEFINITION MUST APPEAR

IN SOME FORM
In the following situations definition must be a part of your argument.
1. When you use a specialized, technical, or slang term with an audience
that might not understand it.
. 63
2. When you put a signal in your predicate, such as "real" or "basi-
cally," announcing that part of your argument will be a challenging

redefinition of the predicate.
3. When you have invented a new term or used a term metaphorically
or created a new class to put your subject in.
4. When you redefine a broad term or apply only part of its meaning
to fit your evidence.
In addition to these specific cases, remember that your particular audience always influences your argument. Whenever you sense that your
proposition will meet with resistance from the audience you are addressing
and that you have an uphill battle ahead, you may need to define your
predicate in order to forestall your audience's objections.
Using a Specialized, Technical, or Slang

Term for Outsiders
Someone arguing for any of the following claims would need to define the
predicate terms for an audience of outsiders, though not necessarily for an
audience who shared the terminology.
1. Aldous Huxley's Antic Hay is a roman a rle/
2. Marcel Duchamp was a Dadaist.

3. This book provides a heuristic of argument.
4. Russian biology in the twentieth century is Lamarckian.
5 . Voltaire was a theist, not a deist.
Here is an example of a specialist briefly defining a term in an argument

addressed to a student audience:
Whitman was an advocate of "organic form," believing that poetry should
grow naturally out of itself, like a plant in nature.
-R.
Secor, Outline of American Lihrature
Redefining a Term
Notice the italicized words that wave a flag in front of the predicate.
1. Joe DiMaggio is a true gentleman.
2. Audie Murphy was a real American hero.
64
WHAT IS IT?
3. Sir Lancelot was essentially a male chauvinist pig.

4. The U.S. system of government is basically socialist.
5. The movement for bilingual education is a form of civil war.
Other words that can similarly call for redefinition of the predicate are
acfually, intrinsically, the quintessence of; by its very nature. You can probably think
of more.
Most audiences would find that the words italicized above add a challenge to the claims they appear in. What difference is there between saying
(1) "Audie Murphy was an American hero," and (2) "Audie Murphy was
a real American hero"? The first requires a rather bland demonstration; it
is all but a fact. Audie Murphy was the most decorated soldier of World
War 11, and after the war he had an acting career in the movies.
The second, however, seems to both assert Murphy's claim to heroism
and deny that of others; it has an argumentative edge. You can imagine
several ways of carrying on an argument for this proposition. It could, for
example, turn into a comparison between Murphy and other not-so-real
American heroes. But no matter how you support it, you must work in
a definition of "real American hero." You may demand, for example,
that a real hero have real rather than celluloid experience; that would be the difference between Audie Murphy and John Wayne or Sylvester Stallone.
Or you may require that a real American hero have done more fhan survive the
routine of war at the front; he must, in other words, have done something not only
extraordinary and unprecedented, but something fhat endangered his life. O n January
26, 1945, Murphy saved his beleaguered unit by jumping on a burning
tank destroyer and annihilating fifty enemy soldiers with its machine
guns.
The italicized passages above are the definition; in an argument for a
proposition containing a qualifier like real, giving facts about Murphy's life
without tying them to a definition would not be enough. And notice too
that our definition says as much what the real American hero is not as what
he is.
Examples 1 through 5 above are in order of increasing abstraction and
arguability. By the time you get to "socialist" and "civil war" your arguments will consist predominantly of definition. To define the U.S. system
of government as a form of socialism is to challenge long and widely held
beliefs. To call bilingual education a form of civil war is to refute other
definitions of it as a constitutional right, a matter of ethnic pride, or a sop
to minorities inspired by middle-class guilt. In short, when we put basically,
real, or a similar word into our claim, we announce that the battleground
is definition.
. 65
Inventing a New Term

The following claims differ only in degree from those we have looked at
before.
1. Advertising "Opium" perfume is psychosocial pollution.
2 . Gladys Frank's living room is a suburban salon.
3. State universities are intellectual brothels.
4. Children are an endangered species.
5. Most nineteenth-century poets were novelists.
These claims all take a word not usually applied to the subject at all and
link it up to make a startling statement in order to stimulate an audience
to see things in a new way. What results is often an overstatement, but
one with some force in it if the arguer can find ways of supporting it.
The first three claims have newly created terms in the predicate. "Psychosocial pollution," "suburban salon," and "intellectual brothels" are
terms invented for the occasion by combining things not normally combined. The predicates of sentences 4 and 5 are recognizable terms, but the
whole propositions are startling juxtapositions.
All such invented claims demand definition of the predicate. What, for
example, could possibly be meant by the term intellecfual brothel? Because
proposition 3 is an implied universal, something about the very nature of
state universities must have inspired the writer to create a category to
epitomize them. That category was formed by taking a word not usually
applied to a university-brothel-and
combining it with a word that usually
is-intellectual.
An "intellectual brothel" is a place where ideas are prostituted for the sake
of a transient clientele. Knowledge in a state university is a ccmmodity at the
service of the students, rather than an ideal to be pursued. Occasionally, a good
student falls in love with learning and redeems the commodity.
Proposition 4 is a bit different because the term endangered species is easily

recognized by the average reader, though not with the meaning intended
in this claim. All the effort in this argument will go into showing how the
term endangered species, usually reserved for bald eagles or buffalo, could
possibly apply to children. Obviously, this claim is not meant literally.
This apparent universal can unfold into an argument about the declining
birth rate and diminishing value of children in affluent Western countries.
The arguer means that since children are decreasing in number and importance, they resemble an endangered species.
66
WHAT IS IT?
Redefining a Broad Term

What do these claims have in common?
1. American society is stratified into classes.
2. New Yorkers are provincial.
3. The Hudson River School of painting is literary.
4. Doing nothing is creative.

5. Whitman's Leaves of Grass is a great comic poem.
Each asserts something unusual about its subject. Each is, therefore, quite
arguable. We usually think of the United States as the opposite of a society
layered in classes and the inhabitants of its largest city as anything but
provincial. And how can doing nothing be a form of doing something?
To support any of these claims requires defining the predicate to fit
evidence about the subject. In effect, you must select part of a large,
possible definition, and either ignore or refute the parts that do not fit. For
example, suppose you wanted to argue for sentence 2 . Provincial usually
describes life away from a center of population, a life, presumably, of
limited experience, narrow outlook, and unsophisticated manners. In fact,
one of the dictionary meanings of provincial is "narrow" or "limited." Thus,
applying this term to life in a big city is unexpected. How could it be done
convincingly?
You could do it by emphasizing that part of the definition of provincial
that suits your details. You might seize on the notions of "narrowness" and
"limitation" and argue that New Yorkers can be narrow and limited, and
in that sense provincial. Of course, eventually your argument must get
down to hard evidence. Here is what part of your argument might look
like. (Notice that we have emphasized the definition of provincial.)
Life in the boroughs of New York is indeed provincial, and New Yorkers are
narrow and limited in their experiences of places other than the square blocks around
their homes. It is rare for a native of Brooklyn to leave Flatbush Avenue and
venture on the Grand Concourse in the Bronx. I once met a Brooklynite who
never set foot in the Bronx until she was twenty-one, let alone west of the
Hudson. And even a Manhattan tower dweller, who partakes of "Culture"
several times a week at the opera and museums, still experiences only a narrow
band in the spectrum of possible life styles.
The word provincial is not bent totally out of shape here. Instead, one of
its possible meanings has been selected and the evidence tied to that
meaning. But the readers are, as they must be, explicitly informed of what
parcel of the definition you were working with. They might disagree of
. 67
course, insisting, for example, that "rusticity" is an essential of provincialism and that, according to their definition, it is impossible to live a provincial life in a major city. But that possibility for disagreement is what makes
the proposition arguable in the first place.
Selective defining is a skill that requires sensitivity to audience and
shades of meaning. O n the one hand, you have to avoid defining your
word so narrowly or oddly that your definition will be rejected; on the
other hand, you cannot let your key term mean all the things it could mean
because you would dilute your examples.
Let's look at the defining process in action once more. If you were to
argue for sentence 1,you would obviously not mean that American society
was divided into nobles, yeomen, and peasants with internal gradations in
each class and no movement between. Instead, you might argue as follows:
The class structure in America is not readily visible. Rather, we have classes
in the sense of separate levels of existence that rarely mix with one another, the
essence rather than the trappings of class. We don't have separate labels for our
classes, we don't pray for their preservation in churches, we don't even identify
ourselves as members of one class or another. Nevertheless, class distinctions
are there in the discomfort we feel in the presence of members of another level.
The above paragraph presents a distilled definition of the broad term

class that is easily understandable and acceptable to most audiences; this
redefinition makes it possible to go on and talk about America as a stratified society. The next step in the argument would be to fit examples under
this definition. Notice that class is not defined narrowly as "bloodline," or
so broadly that it covers all distinctions of birth, education, dress, place of
living, speech habits, income level, and occupation. Instead, we have taken
just as much of the complete definition of class as our American examples
might need.
The "selective defining" we have practiced on provincial and class is not
all that difficult. After all, you must have some selective definition of your
predicate in mind when you create a proposition in the first place. You
have to articulate that definition.
FOR YOU TO WRITE

Try your hand at making up claims in the following categories:
1. Using in the predicate a specialized term from a course you have taken.
2. Using in the predicate a broad term that you will redefine, such as political,
sophisticated, street-wise, or conventionnl.
68
WHAT IS IT?
3. Using in the predicate an intensifier like real, basically, or true.

4.
Using in the predicate a new term or a startling juxtaposition.
WHERE TO PUT THE DEFINITION

Examples alone are not sufficient support for more arguable claims. You
need definition as well, and that gives you an added organizational problem-where to put that definition. In a textbook, definitions are often
underlined, boxed, or starred, making them as obtrusive as possible. 4nd
on an exam, you may want to be as forward as a textbook in your demonstration that you know the definition of a critical term. Similarly, in a
technical or scientific article, definition is blunt. For such occasions, beginning with an explicit, isolated definition is usually the best tactic.
But in other writing situations-the essay about literature, the paper for
a history course, the article for a general audience, the play review-two
demands are made'of the writer. The writing in such arguments must be
both precise and easily read, even graceful in style. Precision requires that
definition be present, but style often demands that some elements of an argument be unobtrusive. When the definition must be there yet not impede the flow of the writing, a dispersed, or emerging, definition can be used.
Isolated Definition
Sometimes an argument cannot get off the ground unless the predicate is
defined all at once. When an audience is inexpert and the subject at all
technical, definition must come at the beginning. You could not, for example, argue to the readers of a newspaper that "Lyndon Johnson had hubris," without defining hubris immediately, or that "Stockbrokers are
Manichean," unless the very next sentence, or even clause, translated
Manichean into everyday words for an everyday audience.
The isolated definition, the definition given all at once, can be as brief as
a phrase. (We have just given you an example of that in our definition of
isolated definition. ) O r it can be a sentence, several sentences, even a paragraph or more. But no matter the length, it is delivered whole, in one
installment, as in the following examples.
Third in importance among the sources of medieval monastic culture is
classical culture, the word "classical" having in this instance a meaning which
requires definition but which, in general acceptance, can be taken to mean the
cultural values of pagan antiquity.
-Jean Leclercq,
the Desire for God
The Loue
of
Learning and
. 69
For war, consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of
time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known; and therefore
the notion of time, is to be considered in the nature of war: as it is in the nature
of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of
rain; but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of
war, consisteth not in actual fighting; but in the known disposition thereto,
during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is
peace.
-Thomas
Hobbes, Leoiathan
Dispersed Definition
A second way to solve the definition problems of an argument about the
nature of things is to use or create a definition with many parts. This
definition is then dispersed throughout the argument, satisfying the logical
demand for definition and, at the same time, organizing the essay.
Here's how dispersed definition works. Suppose you are arguing for a
characterization like "Wilkie Collins's Armadale is a sensation novel." This
proposition places a particular Victorian novel in the class "sensation
novel," which has a precise meaning to the literary historian though not
to the general reader. "Sensation novel" is best defined by a list of attributes.
1. The plot of a sensation novel concerns a mystery or secret.
2. The characters, if not always the reader, are kept in suspense.
3. The setting-houses,
weather, landscape, or cityscape-is threatening.

4. The characterizations are often exaggerated.
5 . The subject matter may include the occult, dreams, curses, omens,
and ghosts.
Here are both a definition and an outline. Each of these attributes could
sit at the head of a paragraph followed by supporting examples from
Collins's Armadale. You could, of course, begin your essay by giving the full
definition of "sensation novel" before dispersing it. That would serve the
double function of explaining the predicate term immediately and foreshadowing the structure of the argument. O r you could end your essay by
pulling the parts of the definition together, providing a summary. Everything depends on your audience and thus on how long, elaborate, and
qualified your argument is. If it is short, you risk boring your reader with
needless repetition.
Dispersing the definition works well with words whose meanings can
be given as a list of attributes. But you would not bother to disperse the
70
WHAT IS IT?
definition unless you had examples for each part of the meaning. However,
defining your predicate term and finding examples are reciprocal processes;
each feeds the other. That is, you won't know what examples to look for
unless you know what they might be examples of. And a bag full of
examples won't mean a thing without the organizing principle of a definition.
To illustrate, here is a proposition whose predicate requires us to invent a plausible list of attributes which we can then disperse throughout
the argument. Our example is "Uncle Armand is an intellectual." Now
intellectual needs a definition. We could think of synonyms-smart, brainy,
intelligent-but these words are just as abstract as intellectual and they bring
us no closer to supporting examples. Common sense tells us that if we
want to get down to Uncle Armand and the things he has, says, and
does, we must break intellectual up into smaller, more manageable terms,
like a series of paths from the abstract to the particular. We can define
intellectual as a list of activities and attributes. These help us bridge the
gap between subject and predicate, between "Uncle Armand" and "intellectual."
reads widely
Uncle Armand
thinks
discusses rationally
is widely informed
According to one part of our definition, an intellectual is someone who

is well read. If Uncle Armand is to fit this part of the definition, we must
demonstrate that he is well read. Now we bring in the evidence to convince
our reader; we mention the 3,000 books in Uncle Armand's library and his
many magazine subscriptions. He tells us that he never watches television,
and we report that we have often seen him reading intently. We could do
a similar piling u p of examples and evidence for each of the four parts of
our definition.
Our "Uncle Armand" proposition is an easy one to support. Let's look
at a more challenging one: "Heavy metal rock is ritual music." What is our
definition of ritual music? We have to construct one that covers examples
from our subject and yet is plausible in itself. That double-duty defining
is, as we have mentioned before, the essential skill in arguing for a claim
about the nature of things. Our definition of ritual music might be the
following list of attributes:
. 71
1. unvaried, incessant, heavy beat

2. undifferentiated vocal sounds
3. melody line relatively unimportant
4.
dance use
Once again, as in the case of Uncle Armand, these attributes, with the
exception of the last, have to be tied to particulars. The first defines the
very nature of heavy metal rock; it makes the universality of this proposition possible.
FOR YOU TO ANALYZE

What claims are being supported in the following arguments? Pick out the
elements of the dispersed definition.
Evolution, then, was "in the air" in the years immediately preceding the
publication of Kstigps [Robert Chambers, V~stigpsof the Natural Hisfory of Creation,
18441, in a number of specific senses. First, a fair number of scientists, from
Buffon and Maupertius to Lamarck and Saint-Hilaire and Meckel, had given it
the cachet of their approval; and while most of these were obscure enough, a
few were of some importance in their fields or had taken pains to be noticed.
Second, the idea had also attracted several nonscientific writers, ranging in
influence and quality from Kant to Erasmus Darwin, and Monboddo. Third,
there had been of late a considerable accumulation of technical findings leading
in the same direction, most strikingly in geology, embryology, and comparative
anatomy. Fourth, a good many of the neutral and half-convinced were recording
the hypothesis honestly enough, sometimes even in popular treatises, as at least
a possibility. Fifth, these influences had rendered the idea sufficiently conspicuous that even hostile writers, when addressing an informed audience, were
forced to deal seriously with it, thereby giving it a sort of disagreeable publicity
of their own. (Herbert Spencer was first seriously interested in evolution by
Lyell's refutation of it in the Prini-ij11~s.)
-Milton Millhauser, /ujt Before Darwin
When the 14th century opened, France was supreme. I-Ier superiority in
chivalry, learning, and Christian devotion was taken for granted, and as traditional champion of the Church, her monarch was accorded the formula of "Most
Christian King." The people of his realm considered themselves the chosen
objects of divine favor through whom God expressed his will on earth. The
classic French account of the First Crusade was entitled Gesta Die per Francos
(God's Deeds Done by the French). Divine favor was confirmed in 1297 when,
a bare quarter-century after his death, France's twice-crusading King, Louis IX,
was canonized as a saint.
72
WHAT IS IT?
"The fame of French knights," acknowledged Giraldus Cambrensis in the

12th century, "dominates the world." France was the land of "well-conducted
chivalry" where uncouth German nobles came to learn good manners and taste
at the courts of French princes, and knights and sovereigns from all over Europe
assembled at the royal court to enjoy jousts and festivals and amorous gallantries. Residence there, according to blind King John of Bohemia, who preferred
the French court to his own, offered "the most chivalrous sojourn in the world."
The French, as described by the renowned Spanish knight Don Pero Niiio, "are
generous and great givers of presents." They know how to treat strangers
honorably, they praise fair deeds, they are courteous and gracious in speech and
"very gay, giving themselves up to pleasure and seeking it. They are very
amorous, women as well as men, and proud of it."
As a result of Norman conquests and the crusades, French was spoken as a
second mother tongue by the noble estate in England, Flanders, and the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily. It was used as the language of business by Flemish
magnates, by law courts in the remnants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, by
scholars and poets of other lands. Marco Polo dictated his Travels in French, St.
Francis sang French songs, foreign troubadours modeled their tales of adventure
on the French chansons de gesfe. When a Venetian scholar translated a Latin
chronicle of his city into French rather than Italian, he explained his choice on
the ground that "the French language is current throughout the world and more
delightful to hear and read than any other."
The architecture of Gothic cathedrals was called the "French style"; a French
architect was invited to design London Bridge; Venice imported dolls from
France dressed in the latest mode in order to keep up with French fashions;
exquisitely carved French ivories, easily transportable, penetrated to the limits
of the Christian world. Above all, the University of Paris elevated the name of
the French capital, surpassing all others in the fame of its masters and the
prestige of its studies in theology and philosophy, though these were already
petrifying in the rigid doctrines of Scholasticism. Its faculty at the opening of
the 14th century numbered over 500, its students, attracted from all countries,
were too numerous to count. It was a magnet for the greatest minds: Thomas
Aquinas of Italy taught there in the 13th century, as did his owl1 teacher
Albertus Magnus of Germany, his philosophical opponent Duns Scotus of
Scotland, and in the next century, the two great political thinkers, Marsilius of
Padua and the English Franciscan William of Ockham. By virtue of the university, Paris was the "Athens of Europe"; the Goddess of Wisdom, it was said,
after leaving Greece and then Rome, had made it her home.
The University's charter of privileges, dating from 1200, was its greatest
pride. Exempted from civil control, the University was equally haughty in
regard to ecclesiastical authority, and always in conflict with Bishop and Pope.
"You Paris masters at your desks seem to think the world should be ruled by
your reasonings," stormed the papal legate Benedict Caetani, soon to be Pope
Boniface VIII. "It is to us," he reminded them, "that the world is entrusted, not
to you." Unconvinced, the University considered itself as authoritative in theology as the Pope, although conceding to Christ's vicar equal status with itself as
"the two lights of the world."
-Barbara
L. Tuchman, A Distant Mirror
73
FOR YOU TO WRITE

Here are some claims w i t h broad terms i n t h e predicate. O u t l i n e arguments
for t h e m b y creating a series of smaller claims, which m a k e u p a dispersable
definition of t h e predicate term.
Example:
Shyness is a handicap.
S h y people have trouble in social situations.
S h y people are a t a disadvantage in school.
S h y people g o unrecognized i n their jobs.
1. Much popular fiction is unreadable.
2 . Musical comedy is a uniquely American entertainment.
3. Many elementary-school children have learning disabilities.

4. My friend
is gifted.
5 . American public education discriminates in many ways.
6 . Thomas Jefferson was a protean man.

7. The civil rights movement was not a regional phenomenon.
8. Hospital care in the United States does not treat the whole patient.
9. Computers are now used in businesses of all sizes.
10. The eastern coal industry is floundering.
How to Define
By now you realize that definition is essential in argument. If you use any
term that your audience will not recognize, either because it is unfamiliar
or because you are using it in an unfamiliar way, you must define it. And
most important is the definition of the predicate in a claim that names,
describes, or characterizes. There, definition can determine the very structure of the argument; it is not just a passing clarification.
Many techniques of definition are available. The more possibilities you
know, the more choices you have, and the more choices, the better your
chance of finding one that works for your audience. You can even use
several techniques. of definition on the same word and attack it from
different sides. This chapter gives you many models for constructing definitions for your arguments.
THE SYNONYM
Using a synonym is the fastest way to define. You simply follow the word
to be defined with another word that means roughly the same thing but
is more familiar to your audience.
HOW TO DEFINE
75
litotes, understatement
febrile, feverish
dour, gloomy or sullen or severe
W.C., the toilet
masjid, mosque
dolce far niente, it is sweet to do nothing
The terms in the above list are probably unfamiliar enough to most
audiences to need definition. But sometimes you do this kind of doubling
for words whose meanings are more obvious. You might, for instance,
say that something is "unique, one of a kind." Using a synonym does not
make unique any clearer here; it's clear enough. The synonym adds emphasis.
Foreign borrowings-like masjid, W.C., or litotes-are often easily translated by a synonym. In all these cases, the relationship between true
synonyms can be expressed with an equals sign. But the synonym definition does not work for words that do not have precise equivalents, and for
many words in English, no other single word means the same. Can you
think of synonyms for words like sociobiology, crenelated, or mauve? For these
words synonymous phrases are required.
The challenge of definition in argument is not always limited to a single
word. Sometimes a phrase, a combination of words that no one would ever
look up in the dictionary, needs the same kind of clarification that a
synonym gives to a single word. Since precise meaning is so important in
argument, you may find yourself using synonymous phrases to define
groups of words in just the way you mean them. You might, for instance,
describe an upcoming primary as "a crucial test for the president" and
follow that phrase with the explanation "one that will determine whether
he runs for reelection."
EXERCISE
Define the following words and phrases by using synonyms:
1. symmetry
6 . pig in a poke
2. sporadic
7. sabbatical
3. binary
8. avatar
4. solecism
9 . eidolon
5. naive
10. caveat emptor
76
WHAT IS IT?
THE GENUS /DIFFERENCE DEFINITION

If you have been taught how to define, you have probably learned to use
the genuddifference definition. This definition has two parts. The word
to be defined is first placed in a genus, a larger class, category, or group it
can belong in, and second, the qualities that distinguish it from other
members of that class are named; those other qualities are called the
difference. A harp, for example, could be placed in the genus stringed instrument,
and distinguished from other members of that genus by a description of
its appearance: It has strings stretched across a large open, triangular frame
and is played by being plucked with the fingers rather than struck or
bowed.
The difference section in a definition can be very short:
An asteroid is a minor planet.
Planet is the genus and minor is the difference. O r sometimes the difference
section can be very elaborate:
A tabloid is a newspaper whose pages, usually about five columns wide, are
about one-half the size of the standard newspaper page left flat after printing
rather than being folded in the middle as is a standard-size newspaper.
Newspaper is the genus and everything that follows is the difference.

One of the skills in making a genuddifference definition is finding just
the right words to convey shades of difference, especially in a crowded
genus. You can see the importance of carefully distinguished differences
in the following series of definitions:
pasta
tagliatelle
linguine
vermicelli
macaroni
any of various flour and egg food preparations of Italian

origin, made of thin unleavened dough and produced in
a variety of forms, usually served with a sauce and
sometimes stuffed
a kind of pasta made with egg in long, flat pieces
a type of pasta in long, slender, flat pieces
a kind of pasta in the form of long, slender, solid
threads, resembling spaghetti but thinner
a pasta prepared from wheat flour in the form of dried
hollow tubes
HOW TO DEFINE
rigatoni
fettuccine
77
a tubular pasta in short, ribbed pieces

pasta in the form of flat narrow strips
In each of these delicious definitions, the genus is pasta. The added

words attempt to distinguish one kind of pasta from another on the basis
of shape and size. Notice that the difference between fettuccine and linguine
is almost too fine for words. (You might want to do further research to
refine these definitions in an Italian restaurant.)
Another skill in putting together a genus/diff erence definition is finding
a genus that is not too broad. If your genus term is too broad, you need
too many distinguishing qualities. For example, if you had used the
broader class food as the genus for rigatoni, the rest of your definition would
have to read something like the following:
Rigatoni is a kind of food made from a paste of wheat and egg forming an
unleavened dough which is then rolled thin and shaped into short, ridged tubes.
You had to incorporate the definition of pasta as well as that of rigatoni
because your original genus was too large. Of course, if your audience
might not recognize the word pasta, the definition would have to be done
that way.
After you put something in a larger category, you have to find ways of
distinguishing it from other things in that category. There are several ways
of doing this. You can distinguish one member of a large class from others
by:
1. What it looks like.
2. How to make or do it.
3. What it does or is supposed to do.
4. What it is made of.
What It Looks Like

The definitions of the different kinds of pasta, given above, distinguish one
from the other on the basis of appearance: macaroni is tubular; linguini,
flat; rigatoni, tubular and ridged. This method of differentiating works
only for objects, things that can be seen. You can distinguish kinds of pasta
by what they look like, but you cannot, for example, distinguish the
Department of Commerce from other departments in the government on
the basis of what it looks like.
78
WHAT IS IT?
EXER CISE
Here are pairs of objects from the same genus. Distinguish them from one
another on the basis of what they look like or on the basis of any other
difference perceivable by the senses.
1. jeans: Levis and designer
5.
2. small cars: Pinto and Chevette
6 . books: folio and quarto
3.
4.
flowers: daisy and rose

dogs: collie and German shepherd
7.
fabrics: velvet and burlap

guns: rifle and shotgun
8. herbs: basil and oregano
How to Make or Do It
Some objects are conveniently defined by how they are made. What is a
quilt? It is a blanket or covering made by sewing several pieces of material
together. A fresco is a wall painting made by applying pigment to wet
plaster. Clay pots can be distinguished by how they are made: Some are
coiled, some hand-molded, some thrown on a wheel. The ingredients are
often mentioned in these how-to-make-it definitions, but the main emphasis is on the process.
Words labeling time-bound processes can best be defined by how to do
them. Dances, like the waltz or the funky chicken, are most precisely
defined by how they are done, though the task is often abandoned in favor
of demonstration. Engraving processes like lithography and etching, laboratory procedures like titration and chromatography, physical actions like
push-ups and throwing a discus can all be defined by how they are done.
It can be very challenging to define a process for someone who has no
mental picture of it or who might actually need to follow your description.
EXERCISES
Define the following by how they are made or done.
1. carving
techniques: scrimshaw and intaglio

painting techniques: pointillism and impasto
3. forms of lace making: netting and tatting
4. exercises: split and sit-up
2.
HOW TO DEFINE
5.
6.
. 79
plant propagation: air-layering and cutting

decathlon events: pole vaulting and javelin throwing
Now define these more abstract processes by how they are done.
1. appealing a traffic ticket
2. serving on a jury
3. making a plane reservation
4.
5.
programming a computer
registering as a transfer student at a particular college or university
What It Does or Is Supposed to Do

Some things, and thus the words that stand for them, cannot be defined
by how they look or what they are made of or how they are made. Instead,
you may have to talk about what the thing does or is supposed to do in
order to construct the difference for a genuddifference definition. Machines especially are known by what they do: a food processor chops,
slices, grinds, mixes, blends, and purkes; a centrifuge separates materials
of different density. Workers too are defined by what they do: Drones do
not work; electrologists remove unwanted hair with an electrified needle;
napropaths massage connective tissues. Diseases, although frequently
characterized by their causes, are also known by what they do to the body:
Gout brings about pain and swelling in the joints; tuberculosis produces
a cough and lung hemorrhage; shingles creates skin blisters; narcolepsy
makes a person sleep compulsively.
Of course there can be quite a difference between what a thing is
supposed to do and what it actually does, between what we might call an
ideal definition and the thud of reality. If we define a babysitter by what
he or she is supposed to do, a babysitter is someone who cleans, feeds,
comforts, protects, and entertains a child. In reality, a babysitter may be
one who plops the kid in front of the television set and keeps him quiet
with a bag of candy. Ideally, a university may be an institution that
produces an educated and competent citizenry; in reality, it may do no
more than keep some people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one
out of the labor market. This difference between the ideal and the real can
be serious. The painful gap between what a thing does and what we want
it to do is a strong impulse to proposal making. Showing that the gap exists
is evaluation (see Parts I11 and IV).
Some larger abstractions can also be defined by what they do or are
supposed to do. The Little League is supposed to give children a chance
to learn baseball and sportsmanship. Your freshman composition course is
80
WHAT IS IT?
supposed to teach you to write clearly and effectively. Public-television

stations are supposed to offer programming for limited audiences. Even
broader abstractions can be defined by what they do: Try making your
own definitions based on what they do for sacrileg~,hospitality, and literary
crif cism.
EXERCISE
Define the following terms by what they do or are supposed to do. (Other
methods might also be possible, but stick to constructing a difference by
describing what these things do.)
1. aspirin
5 . welder
8. worship
2. fraud
6 . fixed term insur-
9. prudence
3. infatuation
ance
7. teacher
4. hair dryer
What It's Made OfIWhat Its Parts Are

You can distinguish one member of a class from others by naming some
or all of its ingredients. Quiches and flans, for instance, are both kinds of
pies that can be distinguished from each other by their ingredients. A
quiche is made with eggs, milk, and often cheese, while a flan usually has
fruit. Obviously, this basis of distinction works well for things put together from ingredients, but prepared dishes are not the only things that
can be defined by what they are made of. An electric fan, for instance, is
made of a small electric motor, blades, a frame, and a protective grill. A
kitchen stove can be defined as a combination of burner units, an oven, and
a grill.
Nor are objects the only things that can be broken into parts. A larger,
more complex entity like a university can be dissected in a number of ways
in order to define it. It is an administration, a faculty, a student body, and
a support staff, if you are thinking of people. It is a collection of colleges
(science, liberal arts, engineering) and an administration, if you are thinking of it as a corporation. And it is a central quadrangle surrounded by
dorms, classroom buildings, labs, offices, and sports facilities, if you are
thinking of it as a physical place.
Whenever you define something by dividing it into parts, you create a
potentially dispersable definition, a structure that can organize a paragraph
or even a whole essay for you (see Chapter 5). If, for example, you wanted
HOW TO DEFINE
. 81
to argue that "this university is changing its notion of general education,"

you might define both university and general education by breaking them into
parts. The university is students, faculty, and administration; changes in
the notion of general education consist of an increase in the required
number of general education credits, changed readings in a humanities
course, the addition of courses in Eastern culture, and a new required
course in computer literacy. These smaller claims, which define general
education, can be dispersed throughout the argument, each tied to its own
parcel of evidence.
EXERCISE
Define the following by breaking them into parts and describing what they
are made of. Some can be approached in more than one way.
1. a playground
Romantic movement
the Coast Guard
4. the state legislature
5. a graduation ceremony
2. the
3.
museum
the French Revolution
8. the football season
9. traffic court
10. a sonnet
6. a
7.
DEFINITION BY EXAMPLE
Since many words stand for collections of things, they can be defined by
singling out one or more examples from the collection. What, for instance,
is an entrepreneur? When you give an example of an entrepreneur, you must
name a particular person. If your audience is familiar with that person, the
name alone will suffice: "An entrepreneur is Colonel Sanders." But rarely
is this simple naming sufficient in writing; usually more information is
added: "An entrepreneur is Colonel Sanders, who turned a chicken store
into a red and white striped empire."
If your audience is completely unfamiliar with your example, you will
have to add much more information: "An entrepreneur is someone like my
friend Jack Kolln, who bought a run-down farm, planted four acres of
grapes, taught himself wine-making, and built the first winery in central
Pennsylvania." From an example like this, your audience can abstract
a genuddifference definition; in this case, an entrepreneur is someone
82
WHAT IS IT?
in business whose ambition makes a success out of a small, risky beginning.

When you use a single example for a definition, you run two risks. First,
your audience might confuse unimportant details with essentials. If, for
example, a reader of your Jack Kolln example abstracted a definition of
entrepreneur as someone who makes wine, then that example failed to define
entrepreneur. Second, if the example is overparticular, no general meaning
will emerge. A long detailed biography of Jack Kolln would confuse the
reader about what part of his life illustrates entrepreneur. The reader would
then have no choice but to assume the whole life defined entrepreneur, and
thus the example would fail again.
Nevertheless, for a writer, definition by example is an indispensable
technique. It lessens the gap between words and representations by producing images for the reader. For instance, epic hero could well be defined
by examples-by Roland, Beowulf, Aeneas, and Ulysses, by an account of
their exploits and heroic journeys. Since definition by example can produce
vivid writing, it can and should be used in conjunction with any other
method of definition. Readers seldom tire of examples.
EXERCISE
Define the following terms by one or more appropriate examples.
folk hero
1. superstar
5.
virtuoso
3. cult movie
4. menial job
6 . underdeveloped
2.
8. ghetto
9.
nation
7 . classic car
10.
congressional
pork-barrel proiect
executive privilege
ETYMOLOGICAL DEFINITION
An etymological definition defines a word by identifying its origins or
roots. It can help you seize on that part of a word's meaning which you
may need in your argument. Philogyny, for example, comes from two Greek
roots, philo- meaning "love" and gyne meaning "woman"; so philogyny
means "love of women." This word is nothing more than the sum of its
parts. Similarly, republic comes from two Latin roots, res meaning "thing"
or "matter" and publica meaning-we have no other word for it-"public."
However, the relationship between the modern meaning of republic and its
HOW TO DEFINE
83
roots is not direct. The roots add up to "public matter," a hint that the
origin of republic as a form of government is the idea that government
concerns public matters.
Sometimes an etymological definition is the most direct way to define
an unfamiliar term. If you have to define a word that is a pure combination
of its roots and nothing more, then an etymological definition is an efficient
translation. Technical words are especially true to their roots and can easily
be defined etymologically. To check this for yourself, look up the derivations of the following words: zwitterion, cathode, poltergeist, plenipotentiary, and
pirdmont.
In argument, an etymological definition can help you seize on the part
of a word's meaning that will be most useful to you. Suppose, for example,
you want to argue for the following characterization:
The liberal arts are educational rather than instructive.
You must, of course, clarify for your reader what you mean by the "liberal
arts." But the essence of your argument depends on your definitions of
those two predicate terms, educational and instructive. They look like synonyms. How can you distinguish one from the other when the common
meaning of both is "teaching"? You can find the difference between
them-and the point of your argument-in
their roots. "To educate"
comes from the Latin verb educere meaning "to lead forth"; "to instruct"
comes from another Latin verb, instruare, meaning "to build in or insert."
The difference, then, between educate and instruct is essentially the difference between out and in. That which educates leads outward, expands,
opens up in many directions. That which instructs puts into the mind,
stocks it with information the way a storeroom is filled with supplies.
These etymologies help you to argue that the liberal arts broaden and
direct the mind into many fields, rather than instruct the mind in one skill.
With the help of etymological definitions, you are able to ignore the more
common meanings of educate and instruct and focus on those that serve your
argument.
EXERCISE
Define the following words etymologically.
1. technology
4. diplomacy
2. mhle chauvinist
5. argument
3. controversy
6.
isometric
84
WHAT IS IT?
7. urbane
8. sophisticated
9. amnesty
10. eccentric
GENETIC OR HISTORICAL DEFINITION

The genetic definition gives the origin of the thing rather than the origin
of the word that stands for it. It is a way of defining something by describing its history, how it came about, how it developed. The genetic definition
is most useful for words that stand for ideas and objects with discoverable
origins. Here, for example, is a historical definition of an object, the Conestoga wagon.
During the early 1700's English and German traditional craftsmen-wheelwrights, blacksmiths, joiners, and turners-in the Conestoga valley of Lancaster
County began to combine features of earlier European wagons-the road wagons of England and the large farm wagons of western Germany-to produce
familiar but new styles of freight-bearing vehicles. By mid-century these wagons were generally known as Conestoga wagons.
-Penns.q[uania
1776
Note that the etymology of the word Conesfoga itself, an Indian place name,
is irrelevant to the definition of Conestoga wagon.
The term defined by a historical definition need not stand for a tangible
thing like a wagon. It can stand for an idea or movement such as "The
Great Awakening."
A series of revivals, usually dated from the preaching of Domine Theodorus
Frelinghuysen (1691-1748), a Dutch reformed minister in New Jersey, the establishment of Tennent's log college (1736), and the first visit of George Whitfield to Georgia (1738) and his later itinerant preaching from Maine to Georgia
(1739-40).
-Enryc.lopedia of American History
In what circumstances is a genetic definition most helpful? It can be useful

when the term itself is not likely to mean anything to a reader; then giving
the history of the thing or concept behind it is the best way to construct
a working definition for your argument. You could not define words like
Schwenkfelder or phlogiston, orrery or spill-dead ideas and dead things-without describing the historical origins of what they stand for.
Historical or genetic definition can also help you use part of the meaning
of a word for the sake of an argument. Suppose you want to argue that
"Henry David Thoreau was really epicurean." You certainly don't mean
HOW TO DEFINE
85
epicurean in its current sense as "someone fond of luxury and sensuous

pleasures, especially eating and drinking." After all, Thoreau lived in a
one-room hand-built cabin and dined off beans and coarse bread. For the
sense of epicurean you want, you must go back to the historical origin of the
idea. In ancient Greece and Rome, an Epicurean was a follower of Epicurus,
a Greek philosopher who prescribed not sensual indulgence, but its opposite, a life of temperance and suppression of desire for anything beyond
that which fulfills natural need. The followers of Epicurus sometimes lived
in walled gardens, away from the temptations of urban life. The word
epicurean has turned itself around in 2,000 years and now means quite
the opposite of what it once did. To go against the current meaning in
your argument about Thoreau, you need the authority of epicureanism's
origin.
The genetic definition is often the "difference" part of a genuddifference definition. The genus term for our definition of epicurean is "follower,"
a very unimportant part of the definition compared with the historical
"difference." You will naturally find that for some words, especially those
describing past ideas and things, history is the best definition.
EXERCISE
Write genetic/historical definitions of the following:
1. Yankee
6 . Arminianism
2. sanscullotism
7. primum mobile
3. technocracy
8. phrenology
ether
5. Skinner box
4.
9.
10.
aeolian harp
gnosticism
NEGATIVE DEFINITION
Sometimes the best way to say what something is, is to say what it is not.
This technique is often preliminary to another form of definition; we use
it to eliminate rival meanings, and that helps us isolate the meaning we
want. Or sometimes a negative definition is as close as we can come to a
meaning; we can only say what something is not, as in the following
example:
86
WHAT IS IT?
Erica Jong's Fear of Flying is not fiction, because some of it is not made up; nor
can we call it an autobiography, because it is not a literal rendering of the events
in her life. Instead, it is something in between for which there is no word.
But when the term you want does exist, negative definition can be
prelude to positive identification:
An antique is not something of a certain age, that is, made before 1830, as
some scholars claim, not necessarily something intrinsically precious, like gold
or diamonds, not something of high style or artistic merit. An antique, rather,
is anything that people consider worth collecting, so long as it is not still being
made. Some people collect the baseball cards of ten years ago, and since they
are not still being made, they are antiques.
In this example, elimination is a kind of ground clearing. If you remove all

things your subject is not, your reader can see more clearly what it is.
You can think of elimination as a technique that removes several possible
rivals to the definition you want. A contrast definition, on the other hand,
carefully discriminates between close alternatives, as though you anticipated the possibility of your reader (1)confusing your word with one
close to it in meaning or (2) confusing two possible senses of the same
word. Here is an example of the first problem. Suppose you want to
characterize someone as "frugal" rather than "stingy." O n your way to
defining frugal (so that your examples will fit), you can distinguish it from
a word close in meaning, dingy. Frugal and stingy both describe a scrupulous
caring for resources, but stingy suggests meanness as well, an unwillingness
to spend evert what is necessary. Frugal does not have the same negative
connotation. And one of the best ways to point that out is to say, in effect,
"When I mean frugal, I do not mean stingy."
The second problem is the necessity to make distinctions between two
possible meanings of the same word. Consider a loaded term like "energy
shortage," one that has picked up meanings and associations the way a
ship picks u p barnacles. Whether the "energy shortage" is "real" has been
the subject of much public debate, often carried on without defining what
an "energy shortage" is. It has been used to mean "distribution problems,"
and "high prices" as well as "running out of a natural resource." If you are
going to use this term in an argument, you should limit its meaning. One
way to do that is to bring u p and dismiss other possible meanings by
making fine distinctions: "An energy shortage is not really lines at the gas
pumps or odd-even rationing systems. They are only examples of the
energy shortage in the sense that the product is not getting to the consumer
quickly enough. The energy shortage I am talking about is our dependence
on a commodity whose supply and price we cannot control."
HOW TO DEFINE
87
EXERCISES
Distinguish between the following pairs of words that are close in meaning.
Define one possible meaning of the following words by eliminating

others.
1.
natural
2. tragic
3. revolution
4. physical fitness
5.
handsome
FIGURATIVE DEFINITION
When Karl Marx defined religion as "the opium of the masses," he created
a figurative definition, a definition that makes a creative comparison between the term under scrutiny and some other thing or quality that it
literally has nothing to do with. Religion is not a drug derived from
poppies, but, as Marx saw it, religion acts as a narcotic and dulls the
indulger's sense of reality. Can you find the points of comparison in the
following figurative definitions?
1. Congress is a beehive that buzzes but makes no honey.
2. A man's home is his castle.
3. Home is a girl's prison, a woman's workhouse.
-George
4. Grief is itself a medicine.

5 . Marriage is a war of attrition.
6. Repression is the gravity of civilization.
Bernard Shaw
88
WHAT IS IT?
Figurative definition is perhaps the most graceful, memorable way of

singling out a meaning of a word. In fact, such definitions are often so pithy
that they survive in the language as aphorisms like the definitions of home
above. They are also effective in argument because they convey attitude
as well as meaning. Calling marriage a war of attrition, for example, defines
it as essentially a kind of conflict, and conveys bitterness and skepticism
about the institution.
Although they are fun to make, figurative definitions are useless if you
need to give the literal meaning of a term. It would do no good, for
example, to define suttee as a squandering of natural resources if your reader
is unlikely to know what it is literally.
EXERCISE
Create figurative definitions for the following:
1. Studying physics is -.
2. My bank account is
3 . A door-to-door salesman is
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
-.
Interstate highways are -.

Fast food is -.
Shyness is -.
Our foreign policy is .The state lottery is -.
Compulsory education is -.
Americans are .
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION
Operational definition presumably attempts to apply the scientific method
to areas untouched before. Modern social scientists and psychologists, for
example, cannot make scholarly arguments about grand abstractions like
poverty," "adjustment," "culture," "neurosis," or "success" until they
give them measurable meanings. Yet when they construct operational
definitions of such terms, they actually use a tactic of definition common
in everyday life. Suppose, for example, your mother asks you to weed the
garden and you have never done it before. You don't even know what a
weed looks like. If your mother wants to protect her chrysanthemums from
I,
HOW TO DEFINE
89
your indiscriminate hand, she had better tell you precisely that anything
in the garden that does not have a dark green, multilobed leaf is a weed.
That is an operational definition, one that defines weed for one particular
time and place. This operational definition is nothing like the definition of
weed in the dictionary. It is, rather, a definition you can operate or act on;
it creates a test for discriminating in one particular circumstance.
An operational definition is particularly useful for setting boundaries.
The definition of a "child" as "anyone who can walk under a turnstile and
get into the circus free" sets a boundary, an upper limit for which there
is an easy, immediate test. An amusement park can define a potential
"dodge-em car driver" as "anyone who is at least as tall as a predetermined
mark on a wall," setting, in this case, a lower limit. And an employer can
define "eligibility for a three-week vacation" as "more than five but fewer
than fifteen years of service," setting both an upper and a lower limit. Each
of these operational definitions provides a simple test for belonging or not
belonging under the term defined. Once an operational definition is in
place, whether anyone or anything belongs to the category defined can be
a fact. You either are or are not tall enough to drive a dodge-em car.
We can move from the amusement park to more problematic arenas for
definition with equal practical success. For example, we can quibble endlessly about whether a particular president is successful or not, with no
hope of resolution unles,, "successful president" is given a satisfactory
operational definition, one or more tests of success that send us to facts.
A satisfactory definition would be one that ;n audience or participants in
a debate find plausible. If a successful president is defined as "one who
brings the unemployment rate down under six percent during his term of
office," we have a test that any individual president will pass or fail.
It looks as if an operational definition could settle any argument. All we
have to do is define a critical term operationally and apply the tests to
reality to generate facts ("President X kept unemployment below six percent during his term in office"), and we have said before that facts are not
matters of argument. But arguments are not so easily settled. All we have
really done is shift the ground of argument to the definition itself. The
issue shifts from "Is X a successful president?" to whether it makes sense
to define a successful president as one who keeps unemployment under six
percent. Someone else may argue that a better definition of "successful
president" is one who keeps inflation under six percent.
Many public debates revolve around operational definitions. For example, the current operational definition of a "high-school graduate" in many
places is "someone who has a diploma testifying that he or she has survived four years of secondary school or its equivalent." There is a movement to change to another operational definition of a "high-school
graduate" as "someone who can read and calculate at the eighth-grade
level." That definition would snatch the diplomas out of many hands. So
90
WHAT IS IT?
here you can see how operational definition can be the beginning rather
than the end of the argument.
If your operational definition is accepted by your audience, it is possible
to settle an issue. Since the stakes for acceptable definition are high, no
wonder operational definitions are desirable. But they can go wrong in
many ways. First, you can be fooled by the paraphernalia of quantification
that goes into proving whether the tests set up by an operational definition
have been fulfilled; the whole thing looks so scientific that you forget to
ask whether the original definition is valid. For example, a sociologist
might be investigating who is and who is not "successful" in a given
society. She defines success operationally as average yearly income: the
higher the income the greater the success. When she writes up her argument, she may have to spend considerable time explaining the difficulty
of calculating average income, especially on the higher levels, where income is often sequestered. Or suppose she comes to the surprising conclusion that doctors are not as successful as judges because as a group their
average yearly income" is lower. She will have to explain that the lower
average income of doctors comes from including low-paid interns and
residents in the group. All this mumbo-jumbo of quantification and
qualification distracts attention from the debatable operational definition
of success as average yearly income. Can success really be quantitatively
defined? Perhaps our sociologist should be talking just about average income, not success.
In some situations we allow certain people to apply for us the tests set
up by an operational definition. The operational definition of strike, for
example, a pitch above the knees, below the letters, and over the plate, is
engraved in the rules of baseball. But the application of the test is left
solely to the eye of the umpire. And your college handbook probably
defines "A" as the grade for superior work. That is a somewhat vague
general definition. Your instructor then both creates and applies the operational definition of an "A,"
Some words resist operational definition. Suppose the Department of
Labor wants to know whether assembly-line workers are satisfied with
their jobs. A social scientist might come in and create an operational
definition by defining "job satisfaction" as coming to work. Coming to
work can be measured by absenteeism and worker turnover. That sounds
like a workable definition, yet a large part of the meaning of "job satisfaction" has been lost. "Satisfaction" is a feeling that often is not even precisely assessed by the person who feels it. And after all, a worker may
attend faithfully a job he loathes.
Go ahead and make operational definitions. They work well for anything that can be measured and then labeled, and they are satisfactory
when partial definition is suficient. But remember they do not work as
well for abstractions because they cannot define the entire concept. If you
I,
HOW TO DEFINE
91
try to make claims about "job satisfaction," defining it as "coming to

work" and measuring it by "absenteeism," all you may really be talking
about is absenteeism.
EXERCISES
Construct or find an existing operational definition of one of the following
terms. Make sure your operational definition is a test by which the term
can be measured.
1. intelligence
2. physical fitness
3. literacy
4.
adolescence
5. love
readability
alcoholism
8. drug abuse
9. mental retardation
10. happiness
6.
7.
It is easier to write an operational definition in specific circumstances.

Try the following:
1. Successful job performance at a local fast-food chain.
2. A teenager with a drinking problem.
3. An academically disadvantaged freshman in your college

4. Musical talent in a very young child.
5.
Intelligence in an animal.
SUPPORTING THE DEFINITION ITSELF

You now have many tactics of definition at your disposal-from the synonym to operational definition. You will find that the more carefully and
explicitly you define your terms, the more credence and respect your
arguments will earn from most audiences. The very act of saying "I mean
precisely this, and not that" can go a long way toward convincing an
audience. However, sometimes your own solitary definition will not be
accepted by a certain audience. You may, for instance, want to make an
argument for a challenging claim like this one: "The smallpox virus is
utilitarian." The common meaning of ufilitarian is "useful," but you mean
it in the more precise philosophical sense of "producing the greatest good
92
. WHAT IS IT?
for the greatest number" and you intend to argue that the smallpox virus
is utilitarian in this sense, because although it can kill people, its continued
existence, at least in the laboratory, ensures that certain antibodies against
related pox infections could be stimulated. Since most audiences will resist
this argument, especially the initial definition, you can help the whole
argument along by backing up and supporting your stipulated definition
of utilitarian.
The best way to support a definition is to bring in an authority that has
explicitly defined the word or has used it as you do. In the case of "utilitarian," that authority might be as accessible as the nearest good dictionary,
which defines utilitarianism as
the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should
be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of
persons.
-The Random Housr Didionary of the
English Language
Another kind of authority is the inventor of a term or a scholar notable

for his or her discussion of it. In the case of utilitarian, the authority is John
Stuart Mill, who wrote the classic essay on utilitarianism. Here is Mill's
definition:
The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest
Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.
-John
Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism
What are the relative merits of dictionary definitions and definitions

from individual authority? The dictionary gives a range of meaning; it
describes the ways a word is actually used, and therefore it can lend the
authority of common usage to your choice of meaning. But a dictionary
will rarely support the very precise, qualifi~ddefinition necessary in some
arguments. Look at the following passage where the philosopher Sissela
Bok uses an authority to back up her definition of moral justification:
Moral justification, therefore, cannot be exclusive or hidden; it has to be
capable of being made public. In going beyond the purely private, it attempts
to transcend also what is merely subjective. Wittgenstein pointed to the elements of justification in observing that "justification consists in appealing to
something independent."
-Sissela
Bok, Lying
She could not have found such a precisely limited definition in a dictionary.
HOW TO DEFINE
. 93
HOW ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE NATURE OF

THINGS CAN GO WRONG
An argument about a characterization or state of affairs goes wrong whenever the evidence and the thesis, particularly the definition of key terms,
fail to mesh in a way acceptable to its audience. W e can look at that
potential discrepancy from the point of view of the evidence or from that
of the definitions.
When the evidence does not support the exact degree of the claim, the
arguer has committed the fallacy of hasty generalization. Suppose, for
example, someone argues that "Most Mid State students are concerned
about their future in the job market," and cites interviews with four
students, one selected from each class. But Mid State has 35,000 students;
in no way can those four, no matter how representative, be used to generalize about "most" of 35,000. Certainly this argument can and should feature
the four interviews, but those examples should be backed up with a survey
of a much larger number of students and/or what it is about the very
nature of current Mid State students and the job market that adds up to
worry.
The evidence brought in to support a claim can also be inadequate in
kind as well as number. This double error is common in arguments characterizing things. A proposition like "Many athletes are overconditioned"
should not be supported with only three examples from one high-school
football team. How are readers to know that it is not only football players
who can be overconditioned? How are they to know that the high school
from which the examples were taken was not unusual? Those three highschool football players simply cannot represent "many athletes" in number or kind.
You can also focus on definition and criticize a claim as basically incorrect or inaccurately worded because it asks an audience to share an idiosyncratic and/or unsupported definition. In that case, no greater number
or improved spread of examples will make it more acceptable. To say
"Hamlet is a comedy" is to put the play in the wrong class, no matter how
many funny scenes are mentioned or funny lines quoted. No acceptable
definition of comedy could ever fit Harnlet. "Granted," you say in refutation, "Hamlet contains many jokes, puns, and funny exchanges of dialogue,
yet those examples of humor have no significance in characterizing a play
as tragedy or comedy. Whether a play is a comedy has nothing to do with
a joke count." O r suppose your friend has characterized his sister as a
genius and supported that claim by citing her straight-A grade average, her
local ranking as "Outstanding Junior Amateur Tennis Player," and her
election as Fire Company Carnival Queen. You could refute him by saying
94
. WHAT IS IT?
"Yes, all of these may be facts, and they may show that she is bright and
talented, but they don't add up to genius." The refutation of a claim about
the nature of things, then, seizes on an implausible definition or on irrelevant, insignificant, insufficient, or unrepresentative evidence.
FOR YOU TO ANALYZE

I. Identify the technique or techniques of definition used in the following
examples.
Stoicism is that Hellenistic philosophy which sought to make the personal
and political lives of men as orderly as the cosmos.
-Enryclop~dia of IJhllosophy
Good manners consist not only in our willingness to say what we are expected to say, but just as much in our self-control in keeping ourselves from
saying what we really feel and really want to say, but which might hurt others.
When someone says, "How are you today?" we say, "Fine, thanks, and how are
you?"
-Daniel J. Boorstin, Demorrary and It,<
r)irrontent.~
An eddy, or whorl, is a vortex such as you see in the water when a bathtub
drains. Basically, turbulence is a chaotic assembly of eddies within eddies, all
interacting intricately with one another to drive each bit of fluid along a different erratic path.
-Edward A. Spiegel, "Currents in
Chaos," in Soenre Year 1979
Prehistory . . . applies in the Americas to everything before Columbus, before

Cortez, before Pizarro, before Raleigh, the Pilgrim Fathers, and Penn.
-Nikolaus Pevsner, A n Outline of
Etrrouen~t Arrhiterftrre
A true staple [food] provides the people of a peasant countryside with

considerably more than half of their calories, up to 80 or 90 percent.
-Philip Morrison, Srtentific American
September I985
What is symmetry? If you look at me I am symmetrical, right and leftapparently externally, at least. A vase can be symmetrical in the same way or
in other ways. How can you define it? The fact that I am left and right symmetric
HOW TO DEFINE
95
means that if you put everything that is on one side on the other side, and vice
versa-if
you just exchange the two sides-I shall look exactly the same. A
square has a symmetry of a special kind, because if I turn it around through 90
degrees it still looks exactly the same. Professor [Hermann] Weyl, the mathematician, gave an excellent definition of symmetry, which is that a thing is
symmetrical if there is something that you can do to it so that after you have
finished doing it it looks the same as it did before.
P
of
-Richard Feynman, T ~ Chararter
Physical Laro
Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed.
-Blaise Pascal, Thoughts
To alienate is to give or sell.
-Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social
Contrart
When I say "modern physics," I can be very precise: physics after 1896 when
the First breakthrough was made and, a most unexpected thing, made experimentally and not theoretically, in Rontgen's discovery of X-rays.
-1. D. Bernal, Thp &/ension of M a n
A majority taken collectively may be regarded as a being whose opinions,

and most frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another being,
which is styled a minority.
-Alexis de Tocqueville, Drlnorrary in
Amerira
F~actals,geometric forms whose irregular details recur at different scales, are

often fantastically complex. And yet one can create a fractal merely by plotting
points on a sheet of paper according to two simple rules, randomly applied. O n e
begins at any point. The rules then might stipulate that the next point plotted
always be either halfway toward the upper right-hand corner of the page or
one-third of the way toward the center and rotated clockwise 40 degrees; a coin
flip decides which rule is applied. The points seem randomly distributed at first,
but after hundreds of coin flips a distinct form-a fractal-emerges,
-"Fractal Shorthand," Scientifir Anreriran
11. Here are some arguments characterizing the nature of things. Identify
the controlling claim in each argument. Is the predicate term defined, and,
if so, how and where?
The pieces of the kiwi story can be put together in more than one way. I
prefer to look on this curious bird as a classic example of convergent evolution.
In this view an avian organism has acquired a remarkable set of characteristics
96
. WHAT IS IT?
that we generally associate not with birds but with mammals. That the temperate, forested New Zealand archipelago provides good habitats for mammals is
indicated by the success of the exotic mammals introduced there. When there
were no mammals present to lay claim to the niches in this hospitable environment, birds were free to do so.
The kiwi must still lay eggs; after all, it is a bird. It is nonetheless mammallike in a number of ways. For example, Kinsky has reported that kiwis are
unique among birds in retaining both ovaries fully functional, so that the female
alternates between ovaries during successive ovulations, as mammals do Also
as with mammals the prolonged development of the kiwi embryo proceeds at
a temperature below the avian norm. The 70-to-74-day incubation period of the
kiwi is much closer to the 80-day pregnancy of a mammal of the same weight
than it is to the 44-day period that should be enough to hatch a kiwi-sized egg.
When one adds to thic list the kiwi's burrow habitat, its furlike body feathers
and its nocturnal foraging, highly dependent on its sense of smell, the evidence
for convergence seems overpowering. Only half jokingly I would add to the list
the kiwi's aggressive behavior. In the course of my research at the Otorohanga
Zoological Society I often had to enter a large pen that was the territory of a
breeding male kiwi. When I intruded on his domain at night, he would run up
to me snarling like a fighting cat, seize my sock in his bill and drive his claws
repeatedly into my ankles until 1 went away. For this behavior and for the many
other reasons I have cited I award this remarkable bird the status of an honorary
mammal.
-Willi~rn A Calder, 111, "The Kiwi,"
Sczentzfir Arnzricnn
SAMPLE ANALYSIS
T h e thesis of this brief argument characterizing kiwis is n o t revealed until

its last sentence: "For this behavior a n d for t h e m a n y other reasons I have
cited I award this remarkable bird t h e status of a n honorary mammal." T h e
proposition can b e p u t even more simply i n t h e form of a sentence w i t h
a linking verb: "The kiwi is a n honorary mammal." T h e predicate term
"honorary mammal" classifies kiwis metaphorically rather t h a n literally,
since obviously a bird cannot really be a mammal; i t can only h a v e m a m mal-like characteristics.
T h e writer's first task is t o define "honorary mammal" s o w e can understand h o w a n animal that is n o t a mammal can b e like one. H e does s o in
t h e first paragraph, where h e talks a b o u t t h e kiwi as "a classic example of
convergent evolution," a bird that has acquired mammal-like characteristics. After giving that general definition, Calder goes o n t o mention a
n u m b e r of t h e kiwi's attributes, o r examples of typical kiwi behavior, that
are mammal-like: t w o functional ovaries, long incubation period, burrow
habitat, furlike feathers, nocturnal foraging, a n d even aggressive behavior.
These attributes, which h e has observed in kiwis, constitute a dispersed
definition of "honorary mammal."
HOW TO DEFINE
97
IS THE DISMAL SCIENCE REALL Y A SCIENCE?

Herbert Stein
By calling economics the dismal science, Thomas Carlyle was saying something about how dismal it was. He wasn't answering the question of whether
economics is a science. The answer to that is, "On the one hand . . . and on the
other hand. . . . It depends on what you mean by science." That may sound like
a typical academic economist's reply, but it's also a scientific answer. No scientist would consider the validity of a proposition before making sure the terms
were precisely defined.
If by science you mean a subject in which everything that's known is known
with a high degree of certainty, supported by conclusive empirical evidence, and
attested to by the unanimous opinion of experts who approach the subject with
objectivity, then economics isn't a science. But by that definition neither is
physics nor geology nor anything else that's commonly called a science. Geologists can't tell us with much confidence when to expect an earthquake along the
San Andreas fault. People who are unquestionably scientists seem sharply divided about whether a defense against intercontinental ballistic missile attack
is possible in principle, much less in practice, and an outsider can't escape the
impression that the positions of the parties in this debate are influenced by their
political beliefs.
But if science is a subject about which some things are known with a considerable degree of confidence and other things are known with lesser degrees of
confidence and are true only under certain conditions, and in which much is said
that has little analytical or empirical foundation, then economics is a science.
Put another way, there's some science in economics but much else that isn't
science, just as there are scientific and unscientific portions of other sciences.
Though I can't demonstrate this scientifically, I suppose that the ratio of science
to nonscience is lower in economics than in many other fields, especially the
physical sciences. . . .
The laws of economics, li!,e most of the laws of other sciences, are statements
of relationships between two or more variables, all other variables being held
constant. In most physical-science laboratories, conditions can be created in
which the other variables are actually held constant and the relationships between the variables under study can be repeatedly observed Not in economics.
Economists would like to examine the relationship between the price of wheat
and the quantity of wheat demanded under the conditions in which the prices
of all other products, incomes, and tastes are constant. But they can't conduct
a laboratory experiment in which all those variables are constant. The best they
can do is observe the history of all those relationships and hope it contains
enough cases to permit the isolation of the relationship between the price and
the demand from the effect of the other variables. But that's never completely
satisfactory. To some degree this problem exists in other sciences, but it's much
more pronounced in economics, despite the use of increasingly sophisticated
statistical techniques.
Even if one could nail down what these relationships have been in the past,
that wouldn't be enough to predict the future. Economists deal with the behav-
98
. WHAT IS IT?
ior of human beings and social institutions that aren't constant but constantly
changing. The boiling point of water at sea level is the same today as it was in
1708, when Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit devised his celebrated scale. But the way
people react to a change in prices or wages or unemployment or the money
supply is probably not the same today as it was in 1929, or even 1959, because
people have been influenced by history.
Moreover, the body of data available to economists is severely limited in
coverage and reliability. Many statistics that economists commonly work with
don't go back more than 50 years in the United States and go back even less
than that in other countries. What data exist are often flawed by difficulties of
estimation and ambiguities in concept, and although the economic actions of
individuals are in principle the building blocks of economics, most of the data
relate to the behavior of large aggregates.
The difficulty of scientific analysis in economics is illustrated by one of the
relationships most debated these days. Do budget deficits cause interest rates
to rise? The real question here is whether, if everything else is constant, interest
rates will be higher if the deficit is higher. But we can't create a condition in
which everything else is constant. We can only observe deficits and interest
rates under historical conditions in which business investment, private saving,
state and local deficits, foreign budget deficits, cyclical conditions, inflation
rates, and a number of other factors are all changing. Some of those other factors
are expectations, which we can't measure at all but can only infer. It's hard to
determine what part of the variation in interest rates is the result of variations
in the deficit and what part results from variations in other factors. A similar
problem exists in medicine, for example, where researchers can't determine
whether a decline in the incidence of heart disease is the result of a decline in
smoking, a change in the nation's eating habits, or other factors that have been
occurring simultaneously.
Even if we knew the precise relationship between deficits and interest rates
for the past, the same relationship might not hold today and in the future. The
past experience may have changed the way people perceive the consequences
of deficits and, therefore, the way they respond to them. Also, a number of
conditions have changed. So, while we have hunches or make judgments,
economists can't say with great confidence whether, if the deficit is reduced,
interest rates will be lower in 1988 than they would otherwise have been.
Still, there are useful things that economists do know on the basis of considerable evidence. To cite a few examples: Critics used to say that if a parrot were
taught to say "supply and demand," it would be an economist. But the laws of
supply and demand are both valid and useful. Generally, all other things being
equal, people will want to buy more of a product the lower its price is, and they
will want to supply more the higher its price is. If people are free to trade with
one another, the price will settle at a point at which the market clears-that is,
where everyone who wants to buy or sell at that price can do so. This seems
an obvious proposition, but it's still not known to everyone who ought to know
it. People are still surprised when a ceiling on rents leads to a shortage of
apartments, or when a floor on the price of cheese leaves the government
holding a mountain of cheese.
Other things being equal, inflation is more likely to result when the money
supply expands rapidly over a long period of time than when the money supply
HOW 7'0 DEFINE
99
grows more slowly. T h e consequences of neglecting this proposition can be seen

in Israel, Argentina, and a number of other unfortunate places.
An economy organized by voluntary exchange will be more satisfactory to
most of its participants than one organized by t h e government. This is one of
the oldest lessons in economics, one that isn't intuitively obvious, and one that
has been disregarded at great cost i n large parts of t h e world.
There are differences among economists about even these propositions, but
at least in the Western world these differences relate more to the significance
of exceptions than to the validity of t h e general principles. . . .
REREADING ROBINSON CRUSOE: THE ORIGINAL

"NONFICTION NOVEL "
Diana Lo~rcherPazicky
W e tend to think the fuzzy line between fact and fiction is a recent phenomenon. Remember, for example, the stir created in the 1960s by Truman Capote's
In Cold Blood, which was hailed as the harbinger of a new literary genre, the
"nonfiction novel," and spawned a host of imitations. H o w easily we forget that
Daniel Defoe was there before him, in 1719 to be exact, with the publication
of Robinson Crusoe.
Defoe, a compulsively prolific but frequently impecunious journalist, had
little patience with works of the imagination and probably would have found
the distinction posthumously conferred upon him-"father
of the English
novelu-a dubious one a t best. Always o n the lookout for a way to translate
words into currency, Defoe knew a good story when h e heard one and pounced
on the tale of Alexander Selkirk with all the avidity of a contemporary gossip
columnist getting wind of a celebrity scandal. Selkirk was a real English seaman
marooned alone o n a real desert island w h o learned to survive by his wits, and
Defoe based his book o n the various interviews conducted with Selkirk after
his rescue. H e may even have met Selkirk.
Rather than calling it a novel, Defoe would have been far more comfortable
with the cumbersome but comparatively accurate labels, fictionalized narrative
or fictionalized autobiography. In his preface h e assumes t h e point of view of
an editor and presents the narrative as Crusoe's own.
Nevertheless, Defoe takes great liberties with Selkirk's account, such as
extending his sojourn from four to 28 years. That Crusoe retains his sanity,
remembers his language, and never once thinks about women only heightens
this imp1,ausibility.
It is clear that Crusoe is '1s much a product of Defoe's imagination as of
Selkirk's experience and a n early example of h o w the boundaries between fact
and fiction blur, whether the genre be t h e nonfiction novel, "new journalism,"
or even conventional biography.
If its ambiguous genre makes "Robinson Crusoe" surprisingly contemporary,
its ambiguous interpretation continues t o tantalize the 20th-century reader.
Although this novel is far too often consigned to the purgatory of children's
classics, the scrupulous adult reader will appreciate that this is not a mere
100
= WHAT IS IT?
adventure tale but one that rebounds with social, political, religious, and even
anthropological overtones.
"Robinson" has been variously interpreted as a survival myth in which
"Everyman" overcomes the hostile forces of nature; an allegory about the rise
of capitalism in which Crusoe turns a desert island into a mock bourgeois
paradise; and a puritan fable in which the prodigal son who rebelled against his
father by going to sea finds both punishment and redemption on his "island of
despair."
To read the novel on one of these levels alone is to ignore the intricate
network of ironies that gives the seemingly shapeless narrative an interlocking
form and even humor. For example, Crusoe, who wants nothing more than to
go to sea and see the world, spends 28 years in the most extreme isolation and
confinement. Furthermore, having rejected the "middle station" of life that his
father recommended and the circumstances of his birth assigned him, he
devotes those 28 years to trying to duplicate not only the necessities of life but
also the comforts of home.
These ironies are not lost on Crusoe, who is given to breast-beating and
self-recrimination about his folly in succumbing to the irrational, e.g., "I that
was born to be my own destroyer. . . ,"and they reinforce the notion that "fate"
or "divine providence" is conspiring to bring about his deliverance, not only
from his situation, but also from himself.
Thrown back on his own resources, he busies himself with the fine art of
survival, for which he develops a creative and innovative flair. He is proud of
his ingenuity and his labor: "I had never handled a tool in my life; and yet, in
time, by labor, application, and contrivance, I found, at last, that I wanted
nothing but I could have made it, especially if I had had tools. . . ."This formerly
feckless, lazy fellow develops qualities of patience and perseverance and can
expatiate on his achievements with a reverential regard for detail.
The struggle to survive, Crusoe discovers, has a certain salutary influence on
the soul. Like Thoreau he learns to rely on himself and live in harmony with
nature. He also transcends commonplace social values with such insights as,
"All the good things of this world are no further good to us than they are for
our use . . . we enjoy just as much as we can use, and no more."
Defoe's novel is in many respects a paean to the indomitability of the human
spirit. The ultimate irony is that it is only when Crusoe is stripped of civilization
that he becomes most profoundly human. His fears, his needs, his wants, are
no longer individual but universal. In getting back to basics, he becomes a mirror
of man's best instincts, and we feel his continual efforts to make his life more
comfortable are less a manifestation of materialism than of a fundamental need
for stimulation and security. . . .
"AL JOLSON" IN THE PHILIPPINES

Stanley Karnow
"We must slay the father image," Raul Manglapus, the Philippines Foreign
Secretary, remarked the other day. The metaphor, he explained, means that the
HOW TO DEFINE
101
time has come for Filipinos to shake off the influence of the United States and
assert their own national identity.
He has a point. Former Western possessions all retain remnants of their
colonial past, but I doubt that the old imperial legacy is more alive anywhere
than in the Philippines, where America's presence seems to be almost as dynamic now as it was during the days when the United States controlled the
islands. To exorcise it, as Mr. Manglapus and other nationalists propose, would
require a monumental cultural revolution.
An American visiting Manila can feel as if he had never left home. The
Greek-colonnaded public buildings were modeled on those of Washington by
Daniel Burnham, a famous American city planner of the turn of the century,
who also conceived the mountain resort of Baguio to imitate an Adirondacks
vacation spot. The Manila Hotel, designed in 1912 by one of his American
proteges, is the site of Rotary luncheons, Shriner conventions and June weddings.
Affluent residential neighborhoods resemble Beverly Hills, and the suburbs
are a blight of used car lots and fast-food franchises, like the outskirts of Los
Angeles. Taft Avenue honors the first American civilian governor, and Jones
Bridge commemorates an obscure Virginia Congressman who in 1916 drafted
the enlightened legislation that promised eventual independence to the Philippines.
The writer Carmen Nakpil Guerrero has observed that chic Filipino families,
to emulate Americans, incongruously furnish their living rooms with fur pillows
and leather sofas-protected against the fierce humidity by plastic covers.
In a land lush with tropical fruit, snobbish matrons serve their guests canned
American fruit cocktail. Kraft cheese and Hellmann's mayonnaise are manufactured under license, but Filipinos drive hours to Angeles, a town adjacent to
Clark Field, to buy the same American-made items purloined from the PX.
Doreen Fernandez, a cultural anthropologist, explains, "The prestige is the label
'Made in the U.S.A.' "
Filipinos, satirizing their foibles, ioke about an injured man whose doctor
prescribed a local anesthetic. "Please, doc," the patient pleads, "can't I have an
imported one?"
Men with names like cigar labels-Benedicto, Bernardo and Benito-are
known as Benny, Bernie and Butch, and women call themselves Penny, Popsy
and Peachy. Gen. Douglas MacArthur's beautiful mistress, whom he secretly
installed in a Washington love nest, was Dimples. The deposed President,
Ferdinand E. Marcos, is Andy to cronies.
A statehood movement, founded early in the century, claims five million
members. Nearly everyone has a relative in California, Illinois or New York, and
lines form at dawn at the United States consulate, which handles close to
300,000 requests for visas a year. When I asked an applicant why he wanted to
go, he replied, "America is my other country."
A captured Communist insurgent escapes from jail and flees abroad-not to
Moscow, Beijing or Hanoi but to San Francisco. Her "three happiest years,"
President Corazon C. Aquino said in her address to the United States Congress
in September 1986, were spent with her husband and children in exile in Boston.
The dream of every young Filipino is a college degree, and diploma mills
102
. WHAT IS IT?
grind out more lawyers than the society can absorb. But Ivy League credentials
are supreme. In 1980, after Mr. Marcos released him from prison to have a heart
operation in Texas, Benigno Aquino pondered ways to remain in America
without violating his pledge to return home. "Marcos can't resist if I go to
Harvard," Mr. Aquino said-correctly.
Nor is American influence confined to the urban upper classes. Led by nubile
drum majorettes in miniskirts, bands at barrio fiestas invariably play Sousa
marches with gusto.
Nothing illustrates America's impact as vividly as the widespread use of
American English. Candidates campaign in English, delivering florid orations in
the rhetoric of vintage American politicians.
The Government has been trying for years to promote Tagalog, renamed
"Pilipino," as the national language. But Tagalog is spoken by only about 30
percent of the population, mainly in central Luzon, and in any case it is "Taglish." (The word for "toothpaste" is "colgate.")
Though Spain ruled for more than three centuries, its only durable heritage
has been Christianity, implanted throughout the provinces by friars whose
principal aim was to save souls. The United States, by contrast, hoped to turn
the Filipinos into facsimile Americans.
The conquest, which began in 1898, was as ugly as any imperialist episode.
But America soon started to atone for its brutality. O n a sultry August day in
1901, a converted cattle ship, the Thomas, steamed into Manila Bay with 500
young schoolteachers aboard. Precursors of the Peace Corps volunteers, they
fanned out across the archipelago, becoming known as "Thomasites," as if they
belonged to a religious order. Their vocation, though secular, was evangelicalto Americanize the Filipinos and cement their loyalty to the United States. "We
are social assets and emissaries of good will," wrote Philinda Rand, a Radcliffe
graduate, to her parents in Massachusetts.
The early teachers remain legendary. Older Filipinos evoke misty memories
of "Mr. Parker" or "Miss Johnson," who introduced them to reading or algebra.
The diplomat Carlos Rornulo accepted a Pulitzer Prize in 1942 with the words:
"The real winner is . . . Hattie Grove, who taught a small Filipino pupil to value
the beauty of the English language."
Pioneer Americans promoted baseball as an antidote to the addiction to
cockfighting. Baseball, wrote the Manila Times, was "more than a game, a regenerating influence and power for good." The effort partly succeeded. Filipinos are
avid fans and players, and their media detail American major league action. But
cockfighting remains the national pastime.
American education transmuted pop culture. By the 19201s, the vernacular
press was carrying komiks, with Filipino characters lifted intact from American
strips; the intrepid Trece was none other than Dick Tracy in Tagalog. Ersatz
American soap operas, at first broadcast on the radio in the afternoon to housewives, are now a staple of daytime television-complete with detergent commercials.
Essayists, novelists and poets began to write in English. Under the guidance
of American editors, reporters replaced the elegance of Castilian with the razzledazzle of Chicago, so that the Manila press to this day identifies senators as
"solons" and the president as "the prexy."
HOW TO DEFINE = 103
Superb performers, Filipinos adjusted to the Americans' arrival early in the

century by discarding the zarzuela, the Spanish variety show, in favor of vaudeville, called bodabil-its
performers billed as the "Filipino A1 Jolson," the
"Filipino Sophie Tucker," the "Filipino Bing Crosby." Subsequent years
spawned "Filipino" Glenn Millers, Elvis Presleys and Barbra Streisands. Rock
groups with names like Hot Dog and the Boyfriends emerged as clones of the
Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin, though they slowed their beat to the tempo
of the tropics.
Nationalist militants, deploring all this as American cultural neo-colonialism,
are searching for ways to combat it. Hernando Abaya, who once held down the
city desk of the New Haven Register, wants to stage a wholesale purge of American
names, like Taft and Jones, from Manila streets and bridges.
Some people insist that Tagalog replace English in courts and Government
offices. It is bound to be a tough struggle. An activist named Cookie Diokno,
whose English is as fluent as mine, has vowed to speak only Tagalog to her
friends and family. But one morning I overheard her scolding her small son-in
English As she conceded somewhat sheepishly, she was doing what came
naturally.
I spent an amusing afternoon at a rehearsal of an amateur jazz band composed of six or seven businessmen, lawyers and officials. Called the Executive
Combo, they play occasionally at night clubs and parties. Their hero is Duke
Ellington, their theme song is "Take the A Train" and their leader, a demon on
both piano and drums, is Raul Manglapus, the Foreign Secretary
FOR YOU TO WRITE

A claim about the nature of things can be the thesis of a longer argument
when it presents new evidence to a n uninformed audience and/or contains
a challenging definition. The topics suggested below can stimulate your
invention of such arguments that might be addressed to students or an
instructor in an appropriate class.
1. Characterize the state of research on a particular problem in one of
the sciences or social sciences. Remember that the exact wording of your
claim may change in the course of your investigation. Be sure that your
final thesis (which may be the title of your paper) is an accurate reflection
of your evidence. Examples:
biochemistry
psychology
education
Research with hybridomas is a new and promising

field.
ESP research has yielded no verifiable conclusions.
W e still know very little about how people learn.
104
. WHAT IS IT?
physics
physiology
biology
criminology
psychology
anthropology
Recent research on quarks has excited physicists.

Scientists are coming closer to an understanding of
how the brain works.
Currently two groups are hotly debating the
mechanism of natural selection.
Forensic science has reached new heights of
sophistication.
The University of Minnesota study of identical twins
separated from birth tips the balance in the
naturdnurture controversy.
Archaeologists who study early humans in North
America disagree over when the first migrations from
Siberia occurred.
You can formulate theses like these in any area of study that interests you.
2. Much historical argument is a matter of defining and characterizing
past events, eras, and important figures. History is therefore fertile ground
for arguments about the way things happened or what labels best describe
them. The following examples might jog your invention.
1. The cowboys of America's old west were riffraff rather than heroes.
2. The 1950s were a decade of political complacency.
3. Thomas Edison was a tinkerer, not a scientist.

4. Ancient Rome had periods of inflation and price control.
5. Intellectual life in France in 1830 was stagnant.

6. Mary Queen of Scots was a pawn, not a power.
7. Metternich was the architect of nineteenth-century Europe.
8. Chinese civilization is anti-individualistic.

9. Prince Albert was the real Queen of England from 1840 to 1861.
10. History is glorified gossip.
3. The arts and humanities-painting,

architecture, music, literature,
philosophy, rhetoric, language, and classics-are another rich source of
claims.
I . Madame Bovary is an escapist.
2. The secret of Charles Dickens's art is his style.
3. The Pre-Raphaelite painters were obsessed by hair.
4. Postmodern architecture is eclectic.

5. Grand opera is a sublime irrationality.
6. Virgil was basically a farmer.
HOW TO DEFINE
. 105
7. Baroque churches were built for God, not men

8. Machiavelli's Thr
Prince is not cynical.
9. Shakespeare really understood women.
10. Poetry is emotion recollected in tranquility.
4. Some of the most challenging and interesting arguments have to do

with whether a state of affairs even exists. In such arguments, the emphasis
is on marshaling evidence. W e all hold many unsupported assumptions
about what is happening and what isn't. Take one of these assumptions
and see if you can actually gather evidence for it. Write your argument for
the audience of a mass media publication (e.g., U.S. News and PVorld Report
or The New York Times. ).
1. Organized religion is declining in Europe.
2. Every beach is in danger from sharks.
3. The people of India love American movies.

4. Most Americans are fat.
5. SAT scores have not declined in the last few years.
6. Many young people today think that the United States is facing a dismal
future.
7. Pornography is on the rise.
8. Drugs are used extensively in professional sports.

9. The so-called sexually permissive society does not really exist.
10. Cheating is widespread on most campuses.
5. Many arguments about the nature of things set out to correct a

prevailing view. No doubt you have often heard characterizations that you
suspect are inaccurate. Imagine yourself correcting such a prevailing misconception with an argument supporting the more correct view. The thesis
of your argument will follow this paradigm: "Most people think x is y, but
x is really z."
1. Many people think that football is the most popular sport in America, but
that honor really goes to baseball.

2. Many people think all emotional problems are mental, but many are really
physical.
3. I'otatoes are not as fattening as many people think.
4. Children can learn to read at a much younger age than most parents believe.
5. Most people do not really enjoy their vacations
6. Contrary to popular belief, most bosses do not sexually harass their employ-
ees.
7. Most people think that learning to -is difficult, but it really isn't.
106
. WHAT IS IT?
8. Most people think the influence of organized religion is increasing in the
U.S., but it is actually declining.

9. Most people think that left-handedness is random, but actually it is cor-
related with intelligence.

10. Many people think that lotteries equalize the tax burden, but they actually
place it on the poor.
More Arguments About

the Nature of Things:
Comparisons and
Disjunctions
WHAT THINGS ARE LIKE: COMPARISONS

Some arguments support straightforward claims about the existence or
nature of things. Still another way of getting at the nature of something
is to say what it is like. Such a statement is called a comparison. Some
philosophers argue that the act of comparing is a more fundamental operation of the mind than that of defining. Whether or not this is so, you will
find that making comparisons comes naturally. But even though perceiving
a likeness or difference may be a simple intuitive act, arguing for a likeness
or difference is a process with many parts. We are going to analyze various
kinds of comparative statements to discover how to support them. But first
let's talk about why we might bother to argue for a comparison.
Levels of Arguability in Comparison

The least arguable comparisons point out likenesses between things that
everyone believes are similar to start with: "Ohio State University resem-
108
. WHAT I S IT?
bles the University of Illinois." What else would you expect from two large
Midwestern land-grant universities? You could certainly write 500 words
about this subject; you could probably write 5,000. Such a comparison
could entertain a reader, but the result, except in special circumstances,
would be a rather obvious argument, one whose thesis most readers would
grant immediately.
A comparison becomes more and more arguable as the two things compared initially seem less and less alike to the audience addressed. The
following comparisons are arranged in order of increasing arguability with
a contemporary American audience in mind:
1. My dorm room is just like my neighbor's.
2. Kansas City is like St. Louis.
3. Star W a r s is like The Wizard of 0 2 .
4. French cuisine is like Chinese.
5. A modern shopping mall is like a medieval cathedral.

When a reader's initial reaction is "Those two things have nothing in
common," then we recognize an arguable comparison in which the unexpected similarities must be pointed out. We expect dorm rooms to look
alike, and it is not surprising that two Midwestern cities are similar. The
comparison between Star W a r s and The Wizard of O z is not as immediately
obvious, but it arouses curiosity rather than disbelief. But the initial reaction of a general audience to claim 4 would be puzzlement. Except for the
fact that they are both foreign to an American, French and Chinese cooking
appear to have little in common: Their basic ingredients are quite different,
as are their techniques of preparation. So there is more resistance to overcome in that comparison, and a great deal to overcome in claim 5. Malls
and cathedrals, in our superficial wisdom, are dedicated to wholly different
functions, the worship of money and the worship of God. Showing how
they are similar would intrigue most audiences.
Just as a comparison is more arguable the more unlike the two terms
seem to an audience, so also is a contrast, a pointing out of differences,
more arguable the more alike the two terms seem to an audience at first.
There is no point contrasting things extremely unlike. Of course Roman
Britain is different from modern Britain, and we need not point out that
raising tropical fish is a different hobby from operating a ham radio. An
interesting contrast argument finds differences between things that are
apparently similar. We might take a boring comparison and make a lively
contrast from it: Ohio State and the University of Illinois differ enormously.
Like comparisons, then, contrasts differ in degree of arguability. Here
MORE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE NATURE O F THINGS
109
is a list of contrasts arranged, with a general American audience in mind,

in order of increasing arguability:
1. The United States is unlike Bulgaria.
2. High-school football is unlike professional football.
3. Squash is not like racquetball.

4. Patriotism and love of country are not alike.
5. Congress this week and Congress last week are quite different.
The United States is so unlike Bulgaria that we won't get much of an

argument out of a demonstration of the differences. And to most Americans, the differences between high-school and professional football are
obvious, even though they are nominally the same game. When we get to
claim 3, we have a topic an uninitiated audience may be less familiar with,
although players of both games would be aware of every difference between squash and racquetball. In sentence 4, patriotism and love of country look like synonyms; to distinguish between them would require
precise, explicit definition. And we usually talk about Congress as if it were
an unchanging entity. Whenever we use a static word to describe a dynamic thing, our labels are bound to be imprecise. At one time, some
language reformers recommended that whenever we talk about an institution or country, we should specify the time period. In other words, whenever we talk about the United States we should say the United States,,,,
or the Space Program
We do not recommend such
or Congress
an artificial device, but it makes the point that institutions change, and
because they do, a careful contrast, a now and then argument, can be
drawn between various stages.
,,,,-,,,,
,,,,.
EXERCISES
How do you think an audience of your fellow classmates would rank the
following comparisons from least to most arguable?
1. Studying science is like studying history.
like Newswerk.
Watching television is like going to the movies.
4. Rollerskating is like skiing.
5. Squash is like racquetball.
2 . Time is
3.
110
. WHAT IS IT?
How do you think your classmates would rank the following contrasts?
singers are quite different from white singers.
Students today are not like the students of twenty years ago.
3. The rich are very different from the rest of us.
4. Field hockey and ice hockey are quite unlike.
5 . The Democratic party of today is not a t all like the Democratic party of
twenty-five years ago.
1. Black
2.
An entire class may do this exercise individually and then compare results
to see how perceptions of audience differ.
How Do We Make Comparisons?

Arguing for a comparison is a bit more complicated than arguing for
a direct claim about the nature of things. We have more things to
think about at first. But eventually, we do get down to simple claims. Different kinds of comparisons make different demands, so in order to
give any practical advice, we have to carefully distinguish types of comparisons.
Simple Comparisons
The simplest form a comparison can take is "x is like y."
1. The BMW is like a Mercedes.
2. JFK was like FDR.
3. Twentieth-century science is like thirteenth-century religion.
Notice that these are not all equally arguable to most audiences, though
they are all comparisoiis. No matter what the level of arguability, this kind
of comparison has certain requirements.
When we compare two things we are not saying "this whole thing is
the same as that whole thing." Instead, we are saying they are alike in some
way or ways. Thus our argument must name the way or ways in which the
two things resemble each other, the points of similarity. The initial comparison statement must generate at least one more statement that names
a point of similarity. Here's how it works:
MORE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THINGS
. 111
Initial comparison: Twentieth-century science is like thirteenthcentury religion.
\1
Twentieth-century science and thirteenth-century
religion are both international institutions.
Now you already know how to argue for a claim like the second:
Twentieth-century science and thirteenth-century religion are both
international institutions.
1
Twentieth-century science is an
international institution.
Thirteenth-century religion was

an international institution.
Define or identify your terms, and link subject and predicate with verifiable evidence.
We have made this sample comparison generate only one proposition.
It certainly could generate many more, and the more points of similarity,
the stronger the comparison argument:
1. Twentieth-century scientists and thirteenth-century churchmen
have private languages.

2. Both twentieth-century science and thirteenth-century religion are
mysterious to the population as a whole.

3. Both are worshipped by the population as a whole.
4. Both offer prestigious careers.
5 . Both are regarded as systems of salvation.
Each of these propositions can be supported as described in Chapters 3
through 6 .
Arranging the Comparison

When you generate more than one point of similarity from a comparison,
you have to decide how you want to arrange your whole argument. You
have two basic choices. First, you could take up all the points that relate
to one subject and then all of these same points as they relate to the other
subject. In the science-religion example you might divide your paper into
a section on twentieth-century science and another section on thirteenthcentury religion. And in each section you would take up the points of
comparison in the same order.
112
. WHAT IS IT?
Second, you could take up each point of comparison in turn and say all
that has to be said about it in relation to both subjects. Using our same
science-religion example, you could have sections on language, careers,
systems of salvation, and so on. And you could even mix the two methods.
Under what circumstances is one scheme of arrangement preferable to
the other? The point-by-point method is best used when the things you
are comparing come apart easily, as do many physical objects. When you
compare stereos or cars or skis (perhaps to evaluate brands), you are most
likely to do a point-by-point comparison.
1. Car X has front-wheel drive; car Y doesn't.
2. Car X has fuel injection; car Y doesn't.
3. Car X is an import and therefore expensive to repair; car Y is domestic.
4. Car X gets 30 miles per gallon of gas; car Y, 28.
The point-by-point scheme is useful not just for the comparative evaluation of things. Even events and abstractions-wars, for example-have
identifiable parts like causes, purposes, turning points, treaties, leaders,
and weapons, all of which can be separately assessed. So it is even possible
to compare point by point wars separated by thousands of years.
You might also find the point-by-point scheme best when you have a
more arguable, far-fetched comparison or contrast, one where you can
expect your audience's reaction to be "those two things have nothing in
common." An anticipation of audience resistance forces you to identify
and line up the points of comparison for all to see, and when the comparison itself is surprising, that is not going to be easy. Our comparison of
twentieth-century science and thirteenth-century religion, for example, is
somewhat surprising and might best be handled in a point-by-point
scheme.
When is the whole-subject method of arrangement most useful? A
comparison always talks about the parts of its subjects, but in the wholesubject method that concentration on separate parts is less important.
Instead, your purpose is to compare the things as wholes. In other words,
a discussion of one entire subject yields a characterization or evaluation
that can'then be set against the discussion of the other. A tally of points
is not important, but a sense of the whole thing is. When you are comparing two happenings, stories, biographies, or events in the form of narratives, the whole-subject method may be best for two reasons: It does not
break up the narrative, and the subjects treated in narratives usually do not
have parts that can be lined up with perfect symmetry. Suppose, for
instance, you want to compare the lives of the Romantic poets Percy
Bysshe Shelley and John Keats. Although these poets had enough in com-
MORE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE NATURE O F THINGS
. 113
mon to make comparison worthwhile, you cannot line up their lives precisely. Shelley was never apprenticed as a surgeon, and Keats never married and deserted a wife. Yet you do not want to leave out significant
details, and you do want to convey a sense of what their lives were like.
Thus, whenever you want to include nonparallel details or whenever your
comparison involves narrative, you will devote separate sections to each
part, in paragraphs, pages, or chapters, at whatever length best suits your
overall purpose.
EXERCISE
Here are some subjects to compare or contrast. Specify a possible audience
and decide which method, the point-by-point or whole-subject, would
probably provide the better structure for your argument.
1. The
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
summer I spent working. / The summer I spent going to school.

My sister before and after she got married.
Country music / Western music.
Football / ballet.
Ten-pin bowling / duck-pin bowling.
My hometown when I lived in it. / My hometown when I came back from
college for a visit.
School in another country. / School in the United Stairs.
Real comparison arguments, directed at real audiences, are often unsymmetrical. They can be lopsided, with more space devoted to the side
of the comparison that needs more argument, either because it is less
familiar or more difficult to argue with a particular audience. Take, for
example, an argument comparing American baseball and English cricket
for an American audience. No detailed explanation of the rules and customs of baseball would be necessary. Whichever scheme of arrangement
you might use, your discussion of baseball will be brief because you can
comfortably assume that your audience knows all about it. In a point-bypoint comparison, only one sentence in a paragraph might touch on baseball, while the others will explain cricket in great detail. O r in a
whole-subject comparison, the more familiar topic might be handled in a
paragraph, while the rest of the essay is devoted to the less well known.
A British audience, however, might know all about cricket but need to
have every nuance of baseball explained.
And of course the same lopsidedness can hold for the individual points
114
WHAT IS IT?
of comparison. Certainly you would not belabor an easy point or gloss over
a hard one just to make the paragraphs come out equal. To return to our
baseball example, if one rather obscure rule of baseball figured in your
comparison with cricket, that one baseball point would receive more attention.
Metaphoric Comparisons
So far we have been talking about literal comparisons that line up things
belonging to the same class. There is, however, another kind of comparison
that can work even between things not in the same class. Such a comparison is metaphoric, one that makes a single startling link between two
otherwise dissimilar things:
1. Poetry is a drop of water.
2. Knowledge unlearned is like a tennis court covered with snow.
These sudden illuminations of the nature of one thing in terms of another

wholly different thing depend on only one point of similarity. No extended
comparison is logically possible between poetry and water because these
things do not belong to the same class. You can get them together only for
a moment to make one point.
EXERCISE
Since simple comparisons often occur in extended arguments, you should
be able to support a comparison convincingly even in the confines of a
paragraph. Choose one of the following topics for a succinct comparison
or invent one of your own.
1. My brother/sister and I are basically alike.
2 . College and high school are surprisingly similar.
3. Compare
two
two
two
two
4.
books by the same author.

movies by the same director.
movies with the same star.
record albums by the same performer.
Women's clothing is really just like men's clothing.
5. There is no significant difference between the Republican and Democratic

candidates for _ _ _ office.
. 115
Simple Contrast: A Statement of Dissimilarity

The simplest form a contrast can take is "x is not like y."
1. Levis are not like Wranglers.
2. Orville Wright was not like Wilbur Wright.
3. Deism is not like Unitarianism.
These statements divide their subjects from their predicates, but a contrast
need not claim that two things are wholly unlike, only that there are
significant differences between them. Finding these points of difference is
the first step in constructing a contrast argument. Thus, the contrast statement must generate at least one other statement that names a point of
difference:
Levis are not like Wranglers.
/\
Levis and Wranglers are not both sturdy.
/
Levis are sturdy.
\
Wranglers are not sturdy
Once again, you come down to two simple claims and you are on familiar
ground. Generally, everything we have said about comparisons holds for
contrasts. The only difference is that one points out similarities, the other
differences.
Comparing and Contrasting the Same Two Things

Remember that comparisons and contrasts are especially arguable when
your audience assumes the opposite, when they resist the comparison of
things apparently unlike and the contrast of things apparently alike. A
wise tactic is to acknowledge your audience's initial assumptions by using
both comparison and contrast; open your contrast with a comparison section, or your comparison with a contrast. For example, if you want to argue
that country music and western music are really different, you must realize
that many people think they are so alike that they are identical. So you
begin your contrast by pointing out the well-known similarities that have
created your audience's assumptions. O r if you are arguing for a challenging comparison like "Attending a football game is like attending a cocktail
party," you would be wise to begin by acknowledging all the ways these
two soclal events are obviously different.
116
WHAT IS IT?
EXERCISE
Since m a n y arguments begin w i t h a perception of dissimilarity, all writers
need t h e ability t o sketch i n contrasts succinctly. T r y writing brief contrast
arguments o n t h e following topics or, once again, invent o n e of your own.
1. Contrast two relatives (grandmothers, aunts, uncles, cousins) who are really
2.
3.
4.
5.
quite different.
Contrast the spirit of two sports teams in your home town.
Contrast a person, place, or thing you are Familiar with at two different times:
a park you played in as a child then and now; the street you live on, now
and five years ago; a friend as a child and the same friend grown up; the same
job, two different summers.
Contrast your reaction to the same person, place, or thing at two different
times. Here the emphasis is on your reaction, not on the thing itself: a friend;
a teacher; a movie seen twice; a once favorite activity.
Contrast two things most people think of as indistinguishable: two pizza or
hamburger franchises; two brands of the same piece of sports equipment;
two closely related varieties of a plant or species of an animal; two professors
of the same subject.
Comparisons and Contrasts with Degree

Unlike simple comparisons and contrasts, which have o n l y t w o terms to
begin w i t h ("Dwight Gooden is like Roger Clemens"), comparisons w i t h
degree have a third term explicitly stated.
- -Clerical work is more fatiguing than assembly-line work.

First term
Third term
Second term
Claims of this t y p e begin o n e level d o w n from t h e simple comparison or

contrast; t h e y n a m e a point of resemblance between t h e t w o subjects.
Comparisons w i t h degree assert that t w o subjects share a quality a n d
specify h o w m u c h sharing is going o n . T h e sharing m a y b e equal ("Dwight
Gooden is as fast as Roger Clemens") o r unequal ("Dwight G o o d e n has
more control t h a n Roger Clemens." "Roger Clemens has less of a curve ball
t h a n Dwight Gooden").
Some Have More and Some Have Less

T h e following comparisons assert inequality:
1. W o m e n are less aggressive t h a n men.
2. British imperialism w a s more successful t h a n French colonialism.
117
3. Raskin-Bobbins ice cream is creamier than Greyers.
4. Chess players are more macho than football players.
5. The Roman Emperor Augustus was more power hungry than George
Washington.
What are the problems if a statement like one of the above is the thesis
of your argument? First, you must realize that behind a statement that two
things share a quality, although unequally, lies the assumption that the
two things can be compared. Behind the statement that Augustus Caesar
was more power hungry than George Washington lies the assumption that
Augustus and Washington are fundamentally comparable, in other words,
that x is like y, a simple comparison. Is that initial comparison plausible?
They were both leaders, and, furthermore, both were poised at the beginning of new orders of government. These superficial similarities make
comparison possible in the first place; that is, you can put Augustus and
George Washington into the same very general category. But might not
someone respond that the differences of time, ideology, and ciicumstances
are overwhelming? Someone bent on refutation would certainly reject the
initial comparison, saying in effect that it is ridiculous to claim that Augustus was more power hungry than George Washington, because the two
cannot be compared at all.
Because comparisons with degree depend on an unstated simple comparison, they are open to the kind of refutation that says "You cannot
compare oranges and apples." The initial assumption of comparability is
hidden in the statement, and you may forget it is there and so forget to
defend a potential weak spot. If it needs defense, you can back up and
support it just as you would support a simple assertion of similarity ("Augustus was like George Washington").
A second assumption lies behind a comparison with degree. Not only
are the two things basically comparable, but they both possess the third
term to some degree. Unless they both have it, how could you claim that
one has more and the other less? So here is another assumption you may
have to defend if your audience is not likely to acknowledge it. If you say,
for example, "Women are less aggressive than men," you assume that both
men and women are aggressive (to some degree). If aggression is not
something they both have to begin with, then any comparison of degree
of aggression is foolish. Now most people would agree that aggression is
a universal human attribute; both sexes have it. So you would not have
to stop and support this second assumption for most audiences.
But what if your degree comparison is sentence 4, "Chess players are
more macho than football players"? Your first assumption is "Chess players are like football players." You might get over that, because after all
they are both players of competitive sports. But the second assumption,
118
. WHAT IS IT?
"Both chess players and football players are macho to some degree," is
likely to give you some trouble. You should recognize by now that the
trouble comes from the commonly held definition of the word macho. It
usually suggests the external trappings of maleness, the posturing and
exaggeration of physique so obvious in football. To get around that notion, you will have to redefine macho in such a way that it can apply to
chess players, who do not obviously strut, swagger, and pull at their
jerseys and who may be women anyway. Perhaps you will extend macho
to cover the posing of intellectual aggressiveness, the snorting, staring,
and defiant arm crossing that many professional chess players, who are
flamboyant poseurs, engage in. Once again, careful definition is essential
for convincing your readers that both chess players and football players
are macho (to some degree).
Now you are ready for the problem posed by the original degree comparison, claiming more or less of the third term. This quantification problem is easily solved when the initial degree comparison simply requires
verifying a potential fact. If you claim "I have more marbles than my
friend," a count will settle the matter. But if you claim "I have more
common sense than my friend," what do you count? How can you quantify common sense-or aggression, machismo, or hunger for power, for that
matter-so that you can count it? If such attributes were quantifiable in
the first place, no argument would be necessary. Since they are not, you
must choose tactics that enable you to convey a convincing impression of
moreness" or "lessness."
I,
Operational Definition
Suppose you are arguing that women are less aggressive than men, which
is the same as saying that men are more aggressive than women. You have
assumed the basic comparability of men and women, getting past step one,
and you have assumed that aggressiveness is a basic human trait, getting
past step two. Now you are ready to tackle the question of degree. You
can begin by giving an operational definition of aggression, translating it
into one or more observable acts that can be counted. How many men and
women are arrested for assaulf? How many men and women engage in
confacf sporfs? How many men and women are charged with reckless driving?
The italicized words might be part of an operational definition of aggression;
research may yield answers to all these questions. Of course, you have not
completely settled the argument, because your operational definition of
aggression has limited its meaning to observable physical acts, leaving out
verbal aggression, aggression in the pursuit of a career, in short, all the
multiple meanings that aggression has accumulated. (For a fuller discussion
of this problem, see the section Operational Definition in Chapter 6 . )
119
Lining Up Evidence, More on One Side, Less on the Other
Remember that your second assumption was "Both men and women are
aggressive to some degree." That compound breaks down into two simple
claims: "Men are aggressive" and "Women are aggressive." By simply
bringing more support to one side than the other, you can produce the
impression of inequality you are striving for.
This impression can be produced by supporting the "more" side in the
same way any claim about the nature of things is supported, combining
definition with iterative and specific examples. Your support for the Sample "more" proposition might include statements like these: "Men turn
their frustrations into physical restlessness, which is a sign of aggression"
(lower-level generalization). "Observe men waiting in line: they fidget,
shift their weight, and turn around" (iterative example). "I once saw two
men argue over a seat in a ballpark and then break into a fist-fight"
(specific example). All of these statements can be used to support the
assertion "Men are aggressive." Piling up statements like these on one side
produces an impression of moreness; saying more about the aggressiveness
of men suggests that more exists. And conversely, finding little evidence
of the aggressiveness of women implies that little of it exists.
Of course, saying little is not necessarily the same as the existence of
little to be said; you must never assume that your own ignorance means
that no evidence exists or that your audience will not notice the imbalance.
Nevertheless, in an argument, the statements you make explicitly imply
much more than they say. All your statements about men, for example, say
nothing about women, but they imply that women behave in just the
opposite way. All by itself, a statement like "men fidget in line" says only
that. But under the umbrella of the degree comparison, it implies that
women do not fidget in line. So in a sense, an assertion on one side does
double duty.
Some Are Just the Same

The following comparisons assert equality:
1. This auditorium is as long as a football field. (fact)

2. Alcohol is as eficient a fuel as gasoline. (near fact)
3. Law is as overcrowded a profession as accounting.
4. Unemployment is as serious a problem as inflation.
5. Piet Mondrian is as fine a draftsman as Rembrandt.
6 . Altman movies are as confusing as Bergman movies.
7. Collectors who buy undocumented art objects are as morally guilty as
art thieves.
120
WHAT IS IT?
If you find that you are supporting a thesis like one of the above, you
must analyze what your audience is likely to understand by it. A statement
like "Unemployment is as serious a problem as inflation" can have two
possible meanings. If it means, simply, "Both unemployment and inflation
are serious," it is just an idiomatic way of stating a compound. When you
support a sameness statement intended in this loose way, you really support this compound, emphasizing the less obvious element. And you already know how to do that.
However, these statements of sameness disguise another possible meaning. They may be transformed into simple comparisons. If we say, for
instance, that "Altman's and Bergman's movies are confusing," we may
really mean something slightly different: "The confusion of Altman's
movies is like the confusion of Bergman's movies." In other words, our
statement of sameness is really a simple comparison. That is, the confusion
produced in the average viewer by the movies of both directors is perhaps
not exactly the same, but there are many points of similarity. If we were
supporting the compound "Altman's and Bergman's movies are confusing," they could be confusing in entirely different ways. But if we say the
confusion of one resembles that of the other, they must be confusing in
similar ways.
Occasionally, a sameness statement may mean exactly what it says. It
certainly does when it presents a fact like "This auditorium is as long as
a football field." But even in a more arguable comparison, you may try to
support that precise assertion of sameness. You do not mean simply that
both have a third term, or that the third term of one is like that of the other;
you really mean they are as alike as argument can make them. Look at
sentence 7: "Collectors who buy undocumented art objects are as morally
guilty as art thieves." You may mean that the guilt of both is just the same.
How could you convince an audience of that? Here is certainly a place for
lopsided argument. You assume that one side has the third term and work
at making it stick to the other, usually by careful definition. Art thieves
are obviously guilty of appropriating for profit what is not theirs; but so
are unscrupulous art collectors who invest in objets dart and never ask
where the priceless treasure came from. In their intentional blindness they
are as guilty (as you defineguilty) as the deliberate thief. Both art thief and
unscrupulous collector are greedy and willful deceivers; in that sense, their
guilt is the same.
EXER ClSE
-
Here are some comparisons with degree that could be theses of arguments.
In each case decide first whether the two things being compared are com-
121
parable, second whether they both share in the third term, and finally how
the moreness, lessness, or sameness could be argued for. Then choose one,
stipulate an audience, and support it in a brief argument.
1. Pigs are smarter than dogs.
2. Women are stronger than men.
3. Physics is less difficult than chemistry (or vice versa).

4. People who live in small towns are just as cultured as people who live in
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
cities.
Americans are less well educated than Europeans.
Conservatives are just as humanitarian as liberals (or vice versa, for a different emphasis).
Parents are more important to a child's education than teachers.
Children are more adaptable than adults.
Age discrimination is as much a problem as racial discrimination.
People who get all their news from TV are less informed than those who
read newspapers.
DISJUNCTIONS
A disjunction is like a Y in the road: You have to go one way or the other.
You cannot take both roads, and an error might have serious consequences.
Disjunctions, in other words, divide a set of possibilities into two unreconcilable alternatives: "The United States can pursue a policy of peace or one
of war." "You can either fish or cut bait." Logic books have much to say
about propositions in this form, but they rarely occur as the main thesis
in ordinary argument.
Perfect Disjunctions: Not Arguable

1. Either Louise is in California or she is not in California.
2. He either squeezed the trigger or he did not squeeze the trigger.
3. The dodo is either extinct or not extinct.
These propositions simply illustrate one of the laws of thought: A thing

cannot both be and not be at the same time. Louise cannot be both in
California and out of California at the same time. (O.K., she could straddle
the state line.) Dodos cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.
There is usually no need to argue for the perfect disjunction itself; it is
self-evidently true. But you may want to go on and verify one half of it.
122
. WHAT IS IT?
For example: "He pulled the trigger. I saw him do it." Or, "Louise is in
California. I just phoned her there."
Imperfect Disjunctions: Arguable

1. She will either run or not run for the Senate.
2. She is either guilty or innocent.
3. Lawrence of Arabia was either a hero or a madman.
4. Either we develop alternative energy sources immediately, or we
remain at the mercy of OPEC.
5. There are two kinds of houses: those that have had termites and
those that will get them. (Terminex brochure)
A disjunction is arguable when the two alternatives it mentions are not

necessarily the only ones. Logicians throw imperfect disjunctions out the
window immediately as illogical because the framework of the statement
is too rigorous for the content: "How," they ask, "can you say 'either/orl
when common sense tells you that so long as other possibilities exist,
'either/orJ cannot be true?" But a disjunction that is not self-evidently true
can still be argued for; indeed, it is the only kind that can be argued for,
because a perfect disjunction, self-evident to its audience, can be treated
as a fact.
An imperfect disjunction is best seen as a rhetorical device, a way of
expressing something that helps emphasize it and shape the pattern of a
reader's thinking. Setting u p a disjunction forces a reader to think in terms
of a limited set of alternatives. You go on to support one of the alternatives
and refute the other, as though the whole argument came down to a
contest between the finalist you favor and the semifinalist who loses. The
also-rans do not even get into the disjunction.
When you begin to argue for them, disjunctions break down into one
positive and one negative claim.
Lawrence of Arabia was either a hero or a madman.
'/
Lawrence was a hero.
b
'
Lawrence was not a madman.
O r the other way around, depending on what you want to argue for:
Lawrence was not a hero.
Lawrence was a madman.
You will go on to support one of these propositions, the positive or the

negative one, if you can assume that your readers will accept the initial
disjunction. In effect, you must ask yourself, "Can I assume that my
readers will accept this disjunction, or must I defend it before I can go on?"
123
If you think you have to defend it, how do you do so? First, you must
establish that the two possibilities you have named are the only likely
ones, that they fill the field of realistic possibilities. For example, why
couldn't Lawrence of Arabia be called a "charlatan" or "a product of
circumstances" instead of a "hero" or a "madman"? Of course, you do not
have to anticipate every crackpot possibility (such as "Lawrence of Arabia
was really a woman"), only those that plausibly challenge your disjunction. These other possibilities must be refuted: "He wasn't a charlatan
." "He wasn't just a product of circumstances because
because ." After you have eliminated rival possibilities, you are left with a
defended disjunction, still not perfect, but quite respectable.
Now there is only one more objection the wily reader might raise: He
or she might ask, "Why can't Lawrence of Arabia have been both a hero
and a madman? Why can't both alternatives be true at once? Why should
I believe they are mutually exclusive?" This challenge is hard to refute. It
will inevitably take you into intricacies of definition. You will, for example, have to define the nature of heroism in such a way that it excludes
madness. In other words, by skillful definition you try to make your
disjunction as close to perfect as possible.
After you have completed any necessary defense of your disjunction,
you go on to support the positive or negative proposition that you have
broken it into. Remember that you do not always have to give equal time
to both sides. In fact, logically you have to defend only one half. If your
disjunction claims that "Lawrence was either a hero or a madman," and
you support "He was a hero," the other possibility automatically disappears. Similarly, if you support "Lawrence of Arabia was not a madman,"
you have, under the umbrella of your disjunction, supported "He was a
hero." However, if you do not want to rely on your readers' elimination
logic, you might spend some time refuting the other possibility anyway.
FOR YOU TO ANALYZE

Read the following disjunction arguments. How convincing are they?
History shows that wars are divided into two kinds, just and unjust. All wars
that are progressive are just, and all wars that impede progress are unjust. We
Communists oppose all unjust wars that impede progress, but we d o not oppose
progressive, just wars. Not only do we Communists not oppose just wars, we
actively participate in them. As for unjust wars, World War I is an instance in
which both sides fought for imperialist interests; therefore the Communists of
the whole world firmly opposed that war. The way to oppose a war of this kind
is to do everything possible to prevent it before it breaks out and, once it breaks
124
= WHAT IS
IT?
out, to oppose war with war, to oppose unjust war with just war, whenever
possible.
-Ma0 Tse-tung
How praiseworthy it is for a prince to keep his word and live with integrity
rather than by craftiness, everyone understands; yet we see From recent experience that those princes have accomplished most who paid little heed to keeping
their promises, but who knew how craftily to manipulate the minds of men. In
the end, they won out over those who tried to act honestly.
You should consider then, that there are two ways of fighting, one with laws
and the other with force. The first is properly a human method, the second
belongs to beasts. But as the first method does not always suffice, you sometimes
have to turn to the second. Thus a prince must know how to make good use
of both the beast and the man. Ancient writers made subtle notes of this fact
when they wrote that Achilles and many other princes of antiquity were sent
to be reared by Chiron the centaur, who trained them in his discipline. Having
a teacher who is half man and half beast can only mean that a prince must know
how to use both these two natures, and that one without the other has no lasting
effect.
-Niccolo Machiavelli, Thr Prince
In the following examples, discuss how arguable the comparison or

contrast is to begin with. Can the two things be brought into juxtaposition
at all? What is the purpose of each comparison? Notice each author's
choice of arrangement. How apt is it?
Indeed, scientists are in the position of a primitive tribe which has undertaken to duplicate the Empire State Building, room for room, without ever
seeing the original building or even a photograph. Their own working plans, OF
necessity, are only a crude approximation of the real thing, conceived on the
basis of miscellaneous reports volunteered by interested travelers and often in
apparent conflict on points of detail. In order to start the building at all, some
information must be ignored as erroneous or impossible, and the first constructions are little more than large grass shacks. Increasing sophistication, combined
with methodical accumulation of data, make it necessary to tear down the
earlier replicas (each time after violent arguments), replacing them successively
with more up-to-date versions. We may easily doubt that the version current
after only 300 years of effort is a very adequate restoration of the Empire State
Building; yet, in the absence of clear knowledge to the contrary, the tribe must
regard it as such (and ignore odd travelers' tales that cannot be made to fit).
-E. J. DuPraw, Cell and Molecular Eiology
SAMPLE ANALYSIS
The above paragraph is an extended comparison between two things apparently unlike: Most of us think of scientists as highly sophisticated,
civilized people, not at all like a primitive tribe. The initial comparison is
therefore highly arguable, even shocking to most readers.
. 125
After making that initial juxtaposition, the writer goes on to talk about
the tribe's attempt to duplicate the Empire State Building without a plan;
he never again mentions scientists specifically. The reader is left to supply
the missing term of the comparison and to connect the story of the primitive tribe to the enterprise of science. The Empire State Building resembles
the intricate order of nature, whose entire plan none of us has seen. "Interested travelers" are like observers of nature who send back their reports,
some of which are contradictory; "large grass shacks" are primitive scientific models or theories, which must be replaced by more solid structures;
and the current version of science is jus; as unlikely to be an adequate
representation of nature as a tribe's reconstruction of the Empire State
Building.
The effect of this comparison is to make us regard our scientific achievements as tentative and incomplete but in the process of continual improvement; the more detailed the comparison, the more convincing the
characterization of scientists.
T h e difference between certain practices at Dachau (organized in 1933) and
Buchenwald (in 1937), reflects the growing depersonalization of all procedures
during that period. At Dachau, for example, official punishment, as distinct
from random abuse, was always directed at a particular individual. Beforehand
he had a so-called hearing in the presence of a commissioned SS officer. According to Western legal standards these hearings were a farce, but compared to
what later became standard procedure it showed great consideration for the
individual because h e was at least told what h e was accused of and given a
chance to refute the charges. If h e knew what was good for him, h e made n o
effort to defend himself. But he could add one or another detail and sometimes
get off without punishment.
Before flogging, h e was examined by the camp physician, another fairly
empty procedure since the doctor rarely canceled the whipping, though he
sometimes reduced the number of lashes. Even as late as 1939, prisoners at
Dachau enjoyed some limited protection against too flagrant acts of injustice.
W h e n a guard shot or otherwise caused a prisoner's death he had to make a
written report. That was all he had to do, but it was still something of a
deterrent.
Such consideration of prisoners as individuals, though small enough, was out
of the question at Buchenwald, which reflected a later phase of National Socialism. For example, prisoners w h o went insane-and
there were quite a few of
them-were n o longer isolated, protected, or sent to mental institutions, but
were ridiculed and chased about until they died.
But the greatest difference was that a t Buchenwald it was nearly always the
group that suffered, not t h e individual. At Dachau, a prisoner w h o tried to carry
a small stone instead of a heavy o n e would have suffered for it; at Buchenwald
the whole group including the foreman would have been punished.
J
-Bruno Bettelheirn, Thiz l i ~ t o r , n t ~Hi~art:
Autonom,~In a Mac* A p
126
WHAT IS IT?
Physics is aware of phenomena which occur only at thrilrizold magnitudes,

which do not exist at all until a certain threshold encoded by and known to nature
has been crossed. No matter how intense a yellow light you shine on a lithium
sample, it will not emit electrons. But as soon as a weak bluish light begins to
glow, it does emit them. (The threshold of the photoelectric effect has been
crossed.) You can cool oxygen to 100 degrees below zero Centigrade and exert
as much pressure as you want; it does not yield, but remains a gas. But as soon
as minus 183 degrees is reached, it liquefies and begins to flow.
Evidently evildoing also has a threshold magnitude. Yes, a human being
hesitates and bobs back and forth between good and evil all his life. He slips,
falls back, clambers up, repents, things begin to darken again. But just so long
as the threshold of evildoing is not crossed, the possibility of returning remains,
and he himself is still within reach of our hope. But when, through the density
of evil actions, the result either of their own extreme degree or of the absoluteness of his power, he suddenly crosses that threshold, he has left humanity
behind, and without, perhaps, the possibility of return. . . .
-Aleksandr
Arrhipelap
Solzhenitsyn, The G u l a ~
WASHINGTON V S . NEW YORK

Mickey Kaus, Peter McKillop, Nonny Abbott, Howard Fineman, Timothy Noah,
and Eleanor Cliff
There's no use denying it anymore. O n some nontrivial economic and emotional level, Washington's enemy is not Moscow, or Beijing, or Panama. It is the
alien culture 250 miles to the north. America's seat of government and its largest
metropolis are locked in a long twilight struggle over which will be seen as the
city of the nation.
The battle has been going on, quietly, for some time. "In the [past] half
century, the power of New York has declineu almost in proportion to the
imperious, if not altogether imperial, ascent of Washington," writes New York
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who has feet in both camps. But lately things
have been heating up, as Washington again senses victory. Didn't giant Mobil
Corp. flee the Big Apple and seek refuge in Washington's Virginia suburbs?
Wasn't Washington now the richest of the nation's 10 largest metropolitan
areas? Wasn't Bloomingdale's there? Wasn't the blockbuster Gauguin exhibit
opening at the National Gallery? (Yes.) Would it go to New York? (No.) Riggs
Bank, a Washington institution, has a sign at National Airport that reads "Welcome to the Most Important City on Earth!" Even New York's senior senator
seems to agree: "New York is still a great city; but slowly, inexorably, Washington becomes the greater one."
In April, the Washington-based New Republic magazine published a cover
story entitled "NYC, RIP," in which reporter Howard Kurtz outlined in gleeful
detail New York's problems. Paired with Kurtz's article was a piece by Irving
Kristol, the neoconservative writer, explaining why he'd moved from New York
to D.C. New York was no longer "the nation's intellectual center." It "ceased
being that about 20 years ago." In Manhattan's literary living rooms, this broad-
. 127
side brought a swift response. Kurtz? He was just whining because he had to
live in Queens! Kristol? He'd always been a sucker for power. . . .
Let's settle this dispute once and for all. Herewith a scrupulously prejudiced
evaluation of our two municipal contestants:
1. Cosmological Significance: "New York has all the money and money
decides who goes to Washington," says New York developer Donald Trump.
"Washington is just a place people happen to be. It's New York that gets them
there." This is a profoundly myopic statement (see Pruvincialisrn, below). First,
Trump is equating power in Washington only with elected officials, neglecting
the Permanent Washington of regulators, lawyers and lobbyists, who are hardly
beholden to New York. Even when it comes to elected officials, Trump's vision
is almost Marxist in its exaggeration of financial power. If New York money
picked the next president, for example, that will be news to Michael Dukakis,
whose campaign was fueled mainly by Massachusetts businessmen and GreekAmericans from all over.
You could as plausibly argue that New York is a place where rich people
happen to be. Manhattan has become a playland for the world's wealthy, with
undeniable attractions (see Consumption, below). Increasingly, it is not where
major economic decisions are made. The headquarters of 51 Fortune 500 companies are in New York. A decade ago there were 82. Addressing a breakfast crowd
of New York City corporate leaders, Gov. Mario Cuomo referred to the problems of recruiting workers from the city's isolated, unskilled, despairing minorities. "You can't move away from them," Cuomo told the businessmen. Of
course you can.
Washington is no threat to New York as a business center. (Only two
Fortune 500 corporations are headquartered in the area.) Its claim to significance
is based on power. Reagan was supposed to cut Washington down to size by
reducing "big government." Washington survived. New York may have the
three networks (though NBC had to be bribed into staying). But the major locus
of the news they report is Washington. Which is more important to the U.S.
car industry, a decision made in Washington to pressure Japan on import quotas,
or a decision made in New York on the price at which to underwrite some auto
stock? (Hint: don't buy the stock if they raise the quotas.)
Winner: Washington.
2. Livability: The Germans have a word-Schnder~freude-that
means "joy at
the suffering of others." For Washingtonians, the "Metropolitan News" section
of the New York Times-page B-1-might be called the Schadenfreude Express.
On a single day, recently, page B-1 brought news of the following: delays in
the reconstruction of New York's West Side Highway, which collapsed 15 years
ago. Runaway teenagers dying of AIDS. Pollution on the Jersey shore. A 43year-old Queens woman shot to death while cradling her six-month-old son.
A Long Island doctor found stabbed to death near her Mercedes. Two men
charged in the killing of a "rap" disc jockey. New York dairies planning a cartel
to fix city milk prices. And new layoffs on Wall Street.
No wonder Washingtonians claim New York is physically and socially falling apart, becoming unlivable. In part, this may be an illusion: New York is far
bigger (18 million in the metropolitan area, compared with D.C.'s 3.6 million);
of course it has more murders. Many whites, secure in their sprawling Northwest D.C. ghetto, never see the bleaker side of the capital.
128
. WHAT IS IT7
But three factors decisively coarsen middle-class life in New York, compared
with Washington. First is the sheer size and proximity of the underclass of
addicts, drug dealers, robbers and punks that terrorize poor and rich neighborhoods alike. One goal of cities is to provide common space in which citizens can
mingle. But, thanks in part to the ominous underclass, many of New York's
famed public spaces are no longer places for civic interaction. Municipal libraries are crowded with fetid vagabonds looking for a place to nap. Smaller parks
belong to drug dealers.
The second factor is an acute housing shortage, and its companion, rent
control. Even without rent control, housing in New York would be costly.
Construction codes and union rules drive up the cost of building to about 50
percent more than in neighboring New Jersey. The Wall Street whiz kids bid
up prices on choice Manhattan properties. But rent control has undoubtedly
made the situation worse by discouraging both new construction and maintenance.
The beneficiaries are the residents of about 60 percent of New York's apartments, who are protected from rising prices as long as they stay put. Which
means few ever move. Even New York's mayor, Ed Koch, clings to his rentcontrolled apartment in Greenwich Village. With fewer apartments opening up,
and few being built, the market price for what's available is driven sky high.
In Manhattan, the "market" rent for an apartment hovers around $600 to $700
a room. Newcomers sometimes spend years sleeping on friends' couches. Many
wind up paying thousands of dollars in "key money" to obtain illegal sublets.
A recent Times story on dating contained the complaint of a bachelor that
women often moved in with him on the third date: "They say they like me, but
they also need a place to live. That's not a sound basis for a relationship . . ."
Washington has rent control, too, but it's less severe than New York's, and
it hasn't been in place as long. Washington apartments are cheaper and, more
important, newcomers can actually find a place without going through the
real-estate equivalent of hazing.
Finally, there's a general civility factor. A few years ago the New York Times
matter-of-factly chastised its readers for their habit of defecating in building
foyers or in the middle of the street. Is there another city in America where
"squeegee men" routinely extort quarters by "washing" the windows of cars
immobilized at busy midtown stoplights? (The Times once described these
menacing characters as a "part of New York's great street theater.")
Washington, by contrast, is the Big Campus. There are gorgeous public
parks, maintained through the generosity of the nation's taxpayers. There's a
new subway, paid for by those same taxpayers, that's so clean it looks as if it
might be an extension of the Whitney Museum. There are museums, too, paid
for by you-know-who. In the white ghetto, old policy chums greet each other
on the street and dish gossip.
Winner: Washington.
3. Equality: . . . Washington's median income is far higher than New York's.
That's not because Washington has a lot of really rich people. It's because
Washington has a tremendous number of pretty-well-off people. It's a town of
Volvos, not Rolls-Royces.
One of Washington's dearest pretensions is that it doesn't care about money,
in contrast to Mammon-worshiping Gotham. This is true, in a way Donald
. 129
Trump might not understand. "People who do have money try not to flaunt
their money," says Sally Quinn, a Washington writer, who has it (and flaunts
it). Quinn's husband, Ben Bradlee, is worshiped in Washington not for his
wealth but for his role as executive editor of the Washington Post. When he retires,
his cachet will vanish and be transferred to the next editor. Sondra Gotlieb, wife
of the Canadian ambassador, destroyed her career by slapping her social secretary when she learned that Richard Darman, then a high Treasury official,
wouldn't be attending her party. Darman is now a mere investment banker.
"Nobody's going to slap anybody in Washington ever again if he's not at their
party," notes Diana McLellan, a D.C. society writer. Washington's increasing
wealth simply "means that those power people get taken to fancier lunches,"
says Charles Peters, editor of the Washington Monthly.
In fact, you don't need much money at all to be a social star in Washington,
if you have the right role. Journalists and "public interest" activists are peculiar
beneficiaries of this arrangement; in Washington they are kings as in no place
else. A former Washington Post writer, Walter Shapiro, has written about
driving his beat-up 1972 station wagon to embassy parties without a hint of
status insecurity.
That doesn't mean Washington society is egalitarian, of course. It is, rather,
a one-track status game. At the top, policy pundits compete desperately for slots
on political talk shows that few people elsewhere even bother to watch. In the
middle-management suburban trenches of Maryland, families plaster the back
windows of their Volvos with decals of the prestigious colleges their children
attend. In large families, whole expanses of glass are dangerously obscured.
New York, in theory, has the advantage of what columnist George Will calls
"competing elites." If you're big in the art world, the theory goes, you're still
humble because the bigs of finance don't even know who you are. O n the other
hand, the multiplicity of status ladders may only put a higher premium on the
one yardstick on which they can be compared, namely money. "Competing
elites" haven't stopped New York from being the most class-addled city in
America, where the difference between taking a subway and taking a taxi,
having a fawning doorman or a dangerous walkup, going to private school
instead of public school, can be all the difference in the world.
Winner: Washington, barely.
4. Consumption: Not much contest here. New York's vastness and its ethnic
variety give it a level of specialization Washington simply can't achieve. Walking around New York one can easily find a store devoted exclusively to saxophone and flute repair, a store that sells only light bulbs, a store that specializes
in automotive books.
Meanwhile, Washington's Yuppie uniformity and anti-money pretension
make it a grim killing ground for trendy purveyors of food and fashion. Glorious
Food, a fancy New York caterer, tried expanding to D.C. and discovered that
Washington wants "middle-end food," according to Sean Driscoll, the firm's
cofounder. "It isn't our style, pigs-in-the-blanket on picks."
D.C. dress is almost aggressively antifashionable. For men, a typical Full
Washington includes an off-the-rack suit, a too-short tan trench coat and wingtip shoes. Yellow "power" ties are just catching on. (They're so passe in New
York they sell them on the street.) Women's clothes are equally unhip. "You
have to wear a very long skirt, clumpy jewelry, comfortable shoes and not be
130
WHAT IS IT7
too fashionable," says Patrick McCarthy of W magazine. A D.C. department

store, Garfinkels, recently converted almost totally to designer lines of women's
clothes. Now it is rumored to be in financial trouble. "The Washington woman
does not have the adventurous spirit of the New York woman to experiment
with varied fashion statements," admits Aniko Gaal, Garfinkels's spokesperson.
Winner: New York.
5. High Culture: Another blowout. Washington has artsy pretensions, as
does any healthy, growing American city. "We used to be a sleepy Southern
town, but now we're a cosmopolitan center," is the ritual incantation. One
Washington Post writer even called D.C. "a second Paris."
Get serious. The capital's artistic salvos tend to be of the hollow, "Ain't we
got culture" variety. The National Gallery's Gauguin exhibit, the current hit, is
so huge that, at one showing, bored Washingtonians practically ran through the
last Few rooms to get to the buffet. Some did stop to notice a carving called
"Maison de Jouir," translated by a museum guide as "House of Pleasure."
Actually, it means "House of Humping." Explained museum director J. Carter
Brown: "Washington is a family town."
Washington does have the Kennedy Center, a hideous Culture Box squatting
on the Potomac (built with . . . never mind). In it, Washingtonians flock to see
(or be seen at) productions that seem to become more middlebrow by the week.
The flamboyant Peter Sellars flopped as the center's theater director, either
because he's a fraud or because Washington wasn't sophisticated enough to
appreciate him, depending on whom you talk to. Under schmaltzy Mstislav
Rostropovich, the National Symphony has climbed in esteem From third to
second rate. That's enough for the Post to have recently devoted an embarrassing number of inches to a boosterish story on a single section of the NSO, the
cellos. The only cultural institution that is really in tune with the official culture
of Washington is the American Film Institute. It seems mainly to bring Hollywood celebrities to town For ceremonies and photo opportunities.
Winner: New York.
6 . Provincialism: Washington can't claim to be a real intellectual center,
because it has no great universities. A few years ago, when faculty members
were asked to rate graduate schools in 32 fields, New York schools got 28 top-10
ratings. Washington got zero.
New York does claim to be an intellectual center, but that is now a matter
of dispute. "The debates we have in New York are not about what is happening
at the moment," says Podhoretz, "but really debates over the future." Hmmm.
To the rest of the country, New York's heated intellectual tussles might appear
a trifle insular and retrospective. How many more times are we going to read
about the Rosenbergs, or the old Partisan Review crowd?
The New Yorker magazine's Statement of Purpose, in its first issue in 1925,
reads in part: "It has announced that it is not edited for the old lady in
Dubuque." Here is the New York parochialism that America hates. Life in New
York is so unpleasant, apparently, that New Yorkers must constantly tell themselves it's all worth it, that New York is better than every place else-precisely
because it's so unpleasant. Music sounds better in New York, argues John Rockwell of the Tims, because of the city's "extremes of wealth and poverty." The
"vitality of Wall Street," writes David Byrne of the Talking Heads, somewhat
obscurely, "depends on its accessibility to the Bowery bums." Recently New
- 131
York's current hot magazine, Spy, published a special section "In Search of
America." The title, "Big, Dumb White Guys With Guns," was only half ironic.
"The Smithsonian is supposed to have American stuff," New York punkette
novelist Tama Janowitz told Newsweek: "I don't know how they take all the stuff
we have in America and make it palatable."
One of the attractions of Washington is that Tama Janowitz doesn't live
there. Because the power of Washington is theoretically grounded in the ballot,
the capital must at least keep I I the
~
appearance of friendly relations with the
provinces. But the capital is insulated in its own way. Thanks to the permanent
cadre of staffers and consultants, its economy is virtually recession-proof, protected from the ups and downs that afflict everybody else. Fact-finding missions
into the Heartland are often called "field trips." And Washington is still segregated. Live in the white ghetto, and you would hardly know the city is 70
percent black.
Winner: None. Neither place is really part of America.
7. Morality: New York is not quite the capital of capitalism it's reputed to
be. Comfort in New York too often depends upon some exemption from the
market, some special little angle: a rent-stabilized pad. A tax break (Trump's
favorite). A cushy union deal (New York firefighters have been excused from
making inspections in "inclement weather"). Honesty is not the hallmark of
New York's elite. Cartier recently pleaded guilty to cheating'on state sales taxes.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art was caught inflating attendance figures in
order to get more in grants. Yuppies buy children's books from shady sidewalk
vendors. Only New York could make Dr. Seuss seamy.
Washington is less visibly dishonest. Its immorality is more profound. Start
with the city's original sin, which is that it has profited from the nation's
tragedies. Washington grew as a result of the Civil War and World War I. The
Depression and World War I1 made it a boomtown. Add its isolation, the
inability to judge its product by any clear "bottom line," the way it has grown
fat spending other people's money-the taxpayers', the money of corporations
convinced they must hire a lobbyist with an expense account (either to protect
themselves from Washington, or to glom a favor from Washington).
Indeed, the executive, civil-service branch of government hasn't grown much
over the past two decades. What has grown-the source of Washington's new
wealth-is the economy of hangers-on, of lawyers and consultants and think
tanks and interest groups and trade associations A "parasite culture," Washington writer Fred Barnes labels it. At some point, these Washingtonians achieved
critical mass, and from here on out they can put their kids through college by
taking in each other's policy, as it were. At the top, there's now an established
"three step" procedure, Barnes notes: "You get a job in Congress or on a
presidential campaign, step up to the administration, and finally go on to easy
money," lobbying. Permanent Washington doesn't really care which party is in
power. It's in business either way.
If Washington is now ascendant, and New York descendant-as seems to be
the case-we'd be well advised to remember that our capital was built on this
questionable economic base. Washington is in many ways already a nicer and
"greater" place than New York. It would be even nicer if it would forget its
absurd attempts to achieve parity in the cultural arms race. But it will be hard
132
. WHAT IS IT?
to reform the corruption at its soul. Maybe we should do without a capital for
a while.
FOR YOU TO WRITE

Any of the topics suggested in exercises throughout this chapter could be
expanded into full-length essays. The theses we suggest here are of more
academic interest. We overstate them; you will undoubtedly qualify any
you investigate. For example, we exaggerate the disjunction "For energy
self-sufficiency, the United States must go either coal or solar"; it might
be modified to "If our relations with the Arab nations do not improve, the
United States must go either coal or solar for its energy self-sufficiency."
~
Careful discrimination between rival theories or hypotheses is a staple

of scientific thinking. Here we suggest a few rather obvious comparisons,
contrasts, and disjunctions drawn from various sciences. They may stimulate you to think of others.
1. Darwin's views on evolution were more courageous than Wallace's.
2 . Chimpanzee and human language learning are quite dissimilar (or similar).
3. The human mind works like a computer.
4. The atomic theory of Democritus is not at all like the atomic theory of
Rutherford.
5. All modern economies are in a state of either inflation or recession.
6. Many plants are more complicated than animals.

7. Older people are just as capable of learning as any age group.
8. The abilities of the right side of the brain are quite different from those of
the left.
9. For energy self-sufficiency, the United States must go either coal or solar.
10. Exploring under the sea is more difficult than exploring outer space.
Historical figures, events, and epochs are often better understood when
their similarities and dissimilarities are pointed out.
1. Roman law and Napoleonic law are more alike than different.
2 . The Egyptian and Mayan civilizations have many striking similarities.
3. Warren G. Harding was either a scoundrel or a fool.

4. The space program since the Challenger disaster bears no resemblance to the
space program in the 1960s.

5. The 1960s were more optimistic than the 1970s.
133
6. All emerging nations are either dictatorships or politically unstable.

7. The political terrorists of our times are like the anarchists of the nineteenth
century.
8. Nineteenth-century England was very much like sixteenth-century England.
9. Benjamin Franklin was the American Voltaire.
10. Political history is less revealing of an age than social history.
Our understanding of ideas, movements, and artistic productions is

enhanced by comparison and contrast.
1. Tennyson was as much a self-conscious poseur as Walt Whitman.
2. Descartes was a less systematic thinker than Hobbes.
3. Monet and Manet have more than a letter difference between them.
4. Mozart and Haydn are almost indistinguishable.
5. John Stuart Mill was the Aristotle of the nineteenth century.
6. Most modern poets are more like self-advertising politicians than artists.
7 . All twentieth-century philosophers are either idealists in the camp of Bradley or logical positivists in the camp of Wittgenstein.
8. The development of Woody Allen's career parallels Charlie Chaplin's.
9. Gone wifh the Wind tells us more about the Civil War than any history book.
10. All science fiction can be described as either hard or soft.
Formulating straightforward claims and making comparisons or contrasts are both ways of defining the nature of things. A simple claim and
a comparative thesis can be added together to make an extended argument,
which gets at its subject from two different angles. Here are some pairs of
theses that approach the same subject in different ways.
1. People today have very inaccurate notions about the 1960s. Actually the
1970s were as polarized as the 1960s.
2. Science education is de-emphasized in the schools today. We are back to
where we were before Sputnik.
3. Few great musical performers are teachers. Those who do teach treat their
students with either contempt or maniacal obsession.
4. Indian food is gaining in popularity in the United States. It is not at all like
Chinese or mid-Eastern cuisine.
5. Many students prefer pass-fail grading for electives. But they work less hard
at such courses than they do in courses with regular grading.
You should try to support each thesis in a pair separately. However, for
some audiences you might be able to assert one of the elements without
going into detailed support.
Verification in Argument
Would you believe an argument proposing a certain kind of nuclear-waste

disposal if its writer showed no knowledge about radiation, or a defense
of the electoral college from someone who knew no American history, or
a claim that Cal Ripkin, Jr., is baseball's greatest shortstop from someone
who never heard of Ozzie Smith, Luis Aparicio, Ernie Banks, Honus Wagner, or Pee Wee Reese? Certainly not. You must have solid, verifiable
evidence to support a claim about the nature of things or to back the causal,
evaluation, or proposal arguments you will learn about in later chapters.
You would not even bother to read an argument written by someone
who betrayed fundamental ignorance on the subject. Now think of yourself as a writer rather than a reader. Being well informed on your subject
is your first obligation. You should read what is available, talk to those
who can help you, even collect evidence first hand. Nothing can replace
a solid background. But to get the greatest benefit from it, your reader
should know it is there as well. We are not concerned in this chapter with
how to create knowledge in the first place (the search depends on the
discipline you are working in), but with how such knowledge should
appear in written argument.
How do you let your reader know you have solid evidence to support
your argument? You can, of course, explicitly tell your reader what personal experiences you had, present the research you conducted, refer to
books and articles you read. Or, in less obvious ways you can reveal the
135
VERIFICATION IN ARGUMENT
thorough background knowledge that your reader has a right to expect and
that in turn reflects credit on you. (See also Building Author Credibility
in Chapter 15.) Before we can look at those ways, we have to focus on a
critical question every writer must ask about an intended audience. What
is that audience's state of knowledge compared with yours? Do they know
more than you do, less, or about the same? (Your audience's assumptions
and beliefs are as important as their knowledge, but we discuss such
matters under each type of argument.)
If they probably know more, then your major task is to show that you
know at least enough to argue on the subject. It is difficult to address an
audience that has superior knowledge, but if you are a student you are
familiar with this difficulty. Your papers and exams are written for your
superiors in knowledge, your professors. In such cases you show your
knowledge by (1)defining the important terms in the field, ( 2 ) mentioning
the work of experts, and (3) referring to pertinent books and authors.
You can show your competence in the same three ways if your audience
is approximately your equal in knowledge. But writing to those who know
less than you do creates different problems. You cannot cite books and
experts your readers have never heard of without straining their comprehension and inviting accusations of pedantry and pomposity. Instead, you
must identify every unfamiliar term, every new concept, every name or
book or technique. You have to give enough background information so
that your readers can place new ideas in a familiar context. For example,
if you are going to quote an expert unknown to your audience, you will
have to present that expert's credentials. You write not just "Linus Pauling," but "Linus Pauling, the Nobel Prize-winning chemist." Or if you
refer to a book your readers probably have not read, you would name its
author and identify its contents. You write not 'A Tale of Two Cities, but
" A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens's novel about the excesses of the
French Revolution." Or if you name an unfamiliar place, then it is not just
"the fens," but "the fens, that flat, marshy expanse of land in the east of
England." Whenever your argument depends on specific information, information you cannot assume your readers have, you must stop and inform
them, at whatever length necessary.
"
THE BRAIN SCAN

A critical problem for you as an arguer is presenting information to your
readers in a credible way. Think about how you respond to statements
presented to you as facts. Your response depends on what is already in
your mind. There are, to begin with, some facts that everybody in our
culture seems to know. If your high-school science teacher mentions that
136
WHAT IS IT?
the solar system has nine planets, your brain will register approval because
you have that same fact stored away from elementary school. So of course
you accept as fact any statement you have previously accepted as fact.
That observation sounds crushingly obvious, but you must remember that
you began stocking your brain before you were old enough to know what
you were doing. Some of these "facts," like "Santa Claus brings toys at
Christmas," do not survive the test of time and experience; and as you
grow more critical in your thinking, more of them will be discarded. Or
new information may come along to replace or alter the old.
Now suppose someone tells you a "new fact," something you have
never heard before. How do you respond? Your brain does something like
a quick scan of its stores of information, without your even realizing it, to
find out if this new fact fits in with what you already know. Suppose, for
example, you read that Abraham Lincoln is buried in Springfield, Illinois;
although you have never heard that before, it does not bother you, because
your brain scan, in effect, lines up this new fact with your existing knowledge of Lincoln's associations with Illinois. The new fact fits, so you accept
it readily. But if someone told you Lincoln was buried in Hawaii, your
reaction would be quite different.
Some new facts will not fit at the first scan. You hear or read the tidy
little fact that "the opossum is a marsupial." "I didn't know that," you
respond, surprised. O n the first scan, the word marsupial may call to mind
Australia, kangaroos, and koala bears, while the word opossum, on the
contrary, disconcertingly suggests an animal that can be found in your own
back yard. These tidbits of information seem to contradict each other and
doubt is cast on the new fact. How can an anomaly of Australian evolution
wind up on your side of the world? If the statement had been worded more
precisely in the first place-"The
opossum is the only North American
marsupialM-this new fact would have passed the scan more easily. Those
careful qualifications "only" and "North American" show that the framer
of the statement was aware that your predictable previous knowledge
would make the simple assertion "The opossum is a marsupial" a shade
difficult to accept.
Since the wording can be so important, try to anticipate your readers'
brain scan of any statement you present as a fact. Are they likely to know
it already? If they are, then a simple assertion of the fact is enough. The
easily accepted fact will not need the clarification a startling new fact
needs. The earth revolves around the sun, hot air rises, and rubber is a poor
conductor of electricity. The barest prose suffices for these simple, wellknown facts.
If the fact is not so obvious-if it probably will not pass the first brain
scan-you need to clarify or qualify. How much clarification is necessary
depends on your understanding of your audience. For example, in Japan
you could not say that "Hank Aaron is the home-run king of baseball."
. 137
Your audience would demand the qualification "of American baseball."

And any audience, with the possible exception of one of professional
geographers, would balk at the statement "Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain in the world." Everyone knows it's Everest. You would have to add
the necessary qualification "if we measure from the bottom of the ocean."
Then the fact will probably pass the first scan.
HOW TO VERIFY A CLAIM IN AN ARGUMENT

Sometimes you need more than careful wording to help a statement pass
a reader's brain scan. You need to demonstrate that a convincing connection links the statement with what you want it to represent. In short, you
must verify. We have already defined a fact as a statement that can be
verified. Sometimes that verification must be an explicit part of your argument. How do you do it?
The means of verification are exactly the same as the ways in which you
take in information in the first place. You simply reproduce in writing
whatever verification convinced you. Basically you are convinced of facts
in three ways: (1)you have seen and experienced them; (2) people you
trust have told you about what they have seen and experienced; and (3)
experts have communicated the facts in books or articles on a particular
subject or in reference books like encyclopedias or dictionaries.
Verification from Personal Experience

Many of the arguments you write will arise from situations in your own
life: your dorm needs better security; the library should be open for longer
hours; your community needs a new parking lot or swimming pool and
does not need a new courthouse or another shopping mall. You select these
subjects for argument because you have been frightened by a stranger in
the dorm, unable to study in the library on a Saturday night, frustrated
looking for a parking place downtown, or sweltering on a hot summer
afternoon with no place to swim. All of these experiences are facts. They
have actually happened; they have happened to you. When the topic of
your argument grows out of personal experience, you can regard your
experiences as fact and use them in your argument.
What is the best way to present your personal experience in an argument so that your readers will find it believable? Tell them what actually
happened to you; give the details of time, place, and circumstance but
downplay your feelings about them. For example, suppose you are writing
a letter to your town newspaper, arguing the need for another municipal
138
* WHAT
IS IT?
parking lot and basing your argument in part on personal evidence. Here
are two possible sample paragraphs from this letter. Both use "I" to convey
a personal experience, but which is more credible and therefore convincing?
Last week, when I drove downtown, I couldn't find a parking place for the
longest time. Boy, was I mad. I got angrier and angrier as I drove around town.
The sweat was pouring down my face, and 1was red as a beet. I was so frustrated
I felt like swearing. What an experience!
Last Wednesday morning I had a dermatologist's appointment. I was dowrttown twenty minutes early, yet I was fifteen minutes late. I drove up and down
several blocks around the Glennland Office building, looking for a meter, but
every space was taken. I checked the two municipal lots on Garner and Fraser
Streets-both full. I drove around and around all five levels of the parking
garage-also full. I waited a hopeful five minutes double-parked by a yellow
Mercedes that two old ladies were chatting next to. Instead of getting in they
walked away. I finally parked illegally in the "customers only" lot behind
Centre Hardware store and got a ticket.
Everything is ineffective in the first paragraph. The writing is vague, imprecise, and cliche-ridden. But more important, it is particularly ineffective
support in an argument whose first purpose is to convince your readers
that something has happened (in short, to verify your experience as fact).
Only after your readers are convinced of the reality of your experience, can
you-should you-get them to share your reactions to that experience.
The second paragraph records personal experience in specific detail. Of
course, personal experience alone would not be enough to support the
demonstration section of an argument that a city needs a new parking
garage. You would also need far more detailed statistics on traffic flow, the
number of parking spots available, and the typical demand as measured,
perhaps, in parking revenues. But your personal experience is valuable
evidence as well. First, it shows that parking problems are not just statistics, but inconveniences that affect individuals. The more typical your
experiences are, the more likely to happen to your readers, the better.
Second, your personal experience makes your argument lively, more interesting to read, and therefore more likely to be read. So, once again, if you
have a legitimate personal experience at the core of your argument, use if.
Verification from Hearsay

Hearsay is a word with negative connotations, associated with gossip,
rumor, and unfounded accusations-just the opposite of what you want
139
when you try to verify facts. In its loosest meaning, hearsay is anything
heard from another person, about anything from the price of eggs to the
fate of the universe. Someone can make a factual claim to you directly, or
say that somebody else told it, and so on. Although you take in a great deal
of information by hearsay every day, you cannot hand that information
back in argument as verified fact. No statement is a fact jusf because
someone told it to you. For example, your roommate may tell you that the
bursar at your college occasionally falsifies tuition records. Your roommate's testimony, however, is not sufficient verification that such a crime
happens. He or she may have heard a rumor, have misinterpreted a remark
in passing, have a lively imagination, or even hold a grudge against the
bursar. You would not base any official complaint against the bursar solely
on your roommate's hearsay accusation. Your school newspaper, however,
might run an article citing many student complaints about the bursar.
Although often inadmissible in formal situations such as the courtroom,
hearsay is used extensively in argument as a source of verification. Let us
define hearsay as someone else's testimony of firsthand experience-what
happened to another, what another saw and did. This kind of hearsay
verification is then no different from verification by personal experience,
only this time the personal experience is the other person's, not yours. That
means that your personal experience is actually hearsay to your readers,
and the hearsay information you pass along in writing is in a sense twice
hearsay to them. Your readers believe your "hearsay" only out of trust in
vou; they will believe the hearsay you report only if you likewise convince
them your source is trustworthy. You say, "Dana fell down a hole." Someone says, "Verify that please." You say, "Dana told me so." You tend to
trust people when they are talking about their own experience and when
they can pass tests of credibility.
Obviously, we do not accept hearsay verification without making the
crucial assumption that our informant, our verifier, has no reason to deceive us or is not in turn deceived. A reader who has no reason to doubt
the objectivity of a writer, who does not question the writer's memory,
prejudice, or ability to comprehend, will probably never doubt the accuracy of personal or hearsay testimony. Most of the time we extend such
credibility to our informants. Why should Dana lie about falling down a
hole?
Under what circumstances should we withhold belief in hearsay verification? Although no codified rules exist for when to doubt and when not,
common sense suggests circumstances for suspicion. We tend to distrust
stories that are too good to be true: "I always win at the race track." "All
my stocks go up." "I climbed Mt. Everest without oxygen." Heroic feats
of memory also make us skeptical; we wisely doubt the ability of ordinary
minds to remember large verbatim chunks of conversations (she said, then
140
. WHAT IS IT?
I said, then she said, then I said) or the exact wording of pages of written
material.
Once a person is caught in a serious lie, all his or her subsequent
testimony is subject to doubt. Harsh but true. Embellishing the truth,
however, is more common than outright lying. In some cases, embellishment is no more than an imprecise use of language to dramatize the truth:
"I was up half the night." "My children are driving me crazy." People say
they waited longer, worked harder, ate more, drank less, were angrier or
more in love than they actually were. Embellishments like these make life
a bit more interesting and we normally don't challenge them. But if the
accuracy of a fact verified by hearsay is in any way crucial ("Where were
you at 9 : 3 5 when the murder was committed?" "I was waiting for my date,
who was hours late"), we will demand more precision than embellishment
gives us.
The value of hearsay verification comes down to the objectivity and
competence of the witness. To report a fact, you must first take it in, and
many factors distort perception. The most basic source of distortion is
personal bias. If you have watched your favorite football team lose, are you
likely to be objective about the conduct of the referees? If you saw someone you love in a fight, could you fairly report what the other person said
or did? And if you had just been fired, could you give an accurate account
of what your boss said to you? The same bias you will admit to in your
cooler moments exists in every other human being.
If you are going to use the personal testimony of a witness to an event,
you will of course make sure that the witness was actually at the scene and
able to see and comprehend the event. But think of the kinds of competence required simply to take in what happens. Could you give an accurate
report of the proceedings of the Japanese Diet (parliament), not knowing
the language? You don't even have to go to the other side of the world to
have difficulty taking in an event. You might have a medical examination
and not be able later to give a clear report of what was done to you, or you
could be in the contrcl room of a nuclear-power plant when an accident
occurred and not even realize it. A great deal of prior knowledge may be
necessary simply to take some things in.
Hearsay in print is more believable when the source is identified and
justified, and we have certain conventions about what constitutes adequate
identification. Journalists, for instance, will credit hearsay to "a White
House source" or "a Pentagon informant," thereby creating a sometimes
spurious sense of authority; but in a courtroom, evidence from an unnamed source is inadmissable. Hearsay is often defended by adding further
claims about the veracity of an informer: "The President's aide told me,
and he knew because he sat in on the meeting."
Whenever you have reason to doubt your informant, hearsay testimony
is no longer good enough. You must seek further verification. The testi-
141
mony of a suspected embellisher evokes skeptical follow-up questions like

"How big did you say that fish was?" Or, when the story sounds hard to
believe, and the teller's self-interest is obvious, you ask for more verification. For example, when Peter Habeler and Reinhold Messner claimed to
have climbed Mt. Everest without oxygen, they were asked to produce
evidence other than their mutual corroboration.
Again, all of this checking has to be done if you question the competence or objectivity of your hearsay source. If the evidence you have gained
from someone else is important enough to appear in your written argument, it is better to be suspicious than nai've about its accuracy. The most
accurate and therefore valuable hearsay evidence comes from a source so
competent and trustworthy you can call it authority.
Verification by Authority
An authority is a person or a source that is widely trusted to give accurate
information and careful judgments. The Statistical Abstract, The Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics, The Oxford English Dictionary, Encyclopaedia Britannicathese are famous, authoritative reference books, and there are thousands
of others, compendiums of information on everything from abacus to
zygote. They are not 100 percent accurate-that is an impossible state of
perfection-but those that have been continually updated have been acknowledged as trustworthy over the years. If you find yourself writing on
a recognized topic, something in history or politics or science, you will do
well to pull these heavy books from their shelves to look for and check on
basic information.
When you need information that is too current to have found its way
into the thin pages of a reference book, you must turn to more frequently
published newspapers and journals, which differ in their credibility. Although you wouldn't consult the supermarket copy of the National Enquirer
for a complete text of the president's speech the night before, that's exactly
what you will get in the New York Times. There are other relatively credible
widely distributed newspapers published in major cities. Your local paper
may not be as reliable or detailed on big events, but it may be your only
source of information on events in your community. To compensate for
any inaccuracies in local coverage, you might be able to do some verifying
yourself in your own community.
You may also learn about current events from magazines like Time or
Newsweek or Sports Illustrated, which offer enjoyable and often informative
reading. But keep in mind that mass-circulation magazines often bend and
color facts, or leave out tedious but important details, in order to entertain.
Such magazines should not be used alone as sources of verification.
Television falls in this slightly unreliable category too. An enormous
142
WHAT IS IT?
amount of information is presented on television, but it is very difficult to

trust it implicitly or to use any of it authoritatively. You don't usually take
notes while you watch television newscasts, and the time restrictions of
television programming create more distortions than are found in print.
Just when interviews and discussions turn interesting, the moderator faces
the camera and says, "That's all we have time for now." Unless you can
obtain the transcript or tape of an interview, a talk, or a documentary, you
cannot cite a television program as a source of verification.
So far we have considered certain publications as possible authorities on
current matters. But another very obvious meaning of the word authority
is a person who is an expert on a subject. Experts present their information,
and much more, in books and articles, so when you want to know anything
about a field, find out who the experts are. But don't go at it the other way
and assume that anyone who has written a book about a subject is an
expert. At first glance, books look equally authoritative, but not all are
written by conscientious and thoughtful scholars. How do you tell the
difference? To begin with, you can check the credentials of an author by
seeing what else he or she has published. If the previous book was an
expose of the secret life of Elvis Presley and the most recent a harangue
on the dangers of cloning, you might doubt your author's authority. But
if the author has published other reputable books, you can feel more
confident. You can also check the credibility of a book by looking up
reviews of it in journals and newspapers that send books to other experts
for assessment. The book itself will also give some clues as to its credibility,
and the more you know the subject, the more the quality of the book will
be evident to you. For example: Is the book published by a reputable
publisher? Does the author show sources, just as you do when you write
a paper?
When you want to verify a claim for readers, bring in the authority that
verified it for you in footnotes, in-text citations, or the very wording of
your argument. Accurate documentation is not only a matter of intellectual
honesty; it is also a mark of respect for your audience as alert, intelligent
readers. Consult a handbook for the method of documentation appropriate
to your discipline and format.
FOR YOU TO ANALYZE

Read the following paragraphs and identify the statements of fact. Which
are verified and which are not? Taking into account the author and where
these passages appeared, does the absence of verification weaken credibility at any point?
VERIFICATION 1N ARGUMENT
. 143
Nearly two years ago a former Navy employee who had left the Government
to work for a military contractor received a call offering for sale some inside
information from the Pentagon, according to Federal investigators.
The caller was a consultant, one of many people in the Washington area who
use their knowledge and expertise to help military contractors in their dealings
with the Pentagon.
The former Navy employee alerted the Naval Investigative Service and
agreed to record subsequent conversations with the consultant in which the
details of the deal were fleshed out. . .
That operation proved successful, and shortly afterwards investigators had
the evidence they needed to secure the consultant's cooperation in an investigation. He allowed the Federal authorities to make a recording as he dealt with
a Pentagon official who was providing him with material useful to military
contractors.
That single operation led investigators to an interlocking network of consultants and a far-reaching fraud case that is shaking the multibillion-dollar military-industrial complex to its foundations. Investigators have not disclosed the
names of the former Navy employee or the consultant who began cooperating
in the investigation.
-Stephen Engelberg, "Inquiry into
Pentagon Bribery Began With a
Telephone Call," Tlzr New York fimt.5
The number of cattle on New York farms has dropped to the lowest level
since the state began keeping records in 1867, the New York Agricultural Statistics Service reported this week.
The agency put the number of beef and dairy animals at 1.7 million as of Jan.
1, 8 percent less than the year before. The record is 2.6 million head, in 1888.
The major cause for the drop was a reduction in the number of dairy cows
as part of a Federal program to cut national dairy surpluses, according to Don
Keating, an agricultural statistician here.
Under the $1.8 billion Federal program, partly paid for by the farmers themselves, about 14,000 farmers slaughtered 1.5 million dairy cows and calves in
1986 and 1987 throughout the United States.
In New York, the dairy termination program resulted in a milk-cow population of 844,000 as of Jan. 1, down 6 percent from 900,000 the year before. That
total, the Statistics Service said, was a record low number of milk cows in New
York.
-Harold Faber, "Count of New York
Cattle Lowest on Record," The New York
Times
The study of the time and circumstances of the human colonization of the
New World has preoccupied archeologists for more than a century. The earliest
universally acknowledged North American sites are those that were occupied
by people who made distinctive fluted stone projectile points approximately
144
WHAT IS IT?
11,500 years ago and who are usually given the name Clovis, after a locality in
New Mexico. Although many sites and study areas have been presented as
providing evidence for pre-Clovis human occupation in both North and South
America ( I ) , the validity of this evidence is not accepted by all investigators
(2) Reexamination of one such body of evidence shows that four artifacts from
the Old Crow locality in the northern Yukon Territory, Canada, which were
previously thought to be of late Pleistocene age, were in fact from the late
Holocene.
1. A. L. Bryan, Ed., Early Man in America from a Circum-PaciJirPerspective (Occasional Papers
1, Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, 1978); R. L. Humphrey
and D. Stanford, Eds., Pre-Llano Cultures ofthe Americas: Paradoxes and Possibilities (Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, DC, 1979); R. Shutler, Jr., Ed., Early M a n in the
New World (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1983).
2. F. H. West, The Archaeology of Beringia (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1981); D. E.
Dumond, Am. Antiq. 47, 885 (1982); D. F. Dincauze, in Advances in World Archaeology, F.
Wendorf and A. E. Close, Eds. (Academic Press, New York, 1984), vol. 3, pp. 275-323;
R. C. Owen, in The @&ins ofModern Humans, F . H . Smith and F. Spencer, Eds. (Liss, New
York, 1984), pp. 517-563; E. J. Dixon, North A m . Archeol. 6 , 83 (1984-85).
-D. E. Nelson et. al., "New Dates on
Northern Yukon Artifacts: Holocene
Not Upper Pleistocene," Science
FOR YOU TO WRITE

Write a paragraph supporting a claim about a state of affairs, using as many
factual details as possible to support your thesis. After you finish your
paragraph, ask yourself whether it contains any facts a very skeptical
reader might doubt. Might anything be the product of biased perception?
Might a reader doubt your memory, competence, or objectivity? Might a
reader doubt the authority of your sources? If so, go back and substantiate
your facts with corroboration.
Part Two
HOW DID IT GET
THAT WAY?
The Kinds of Causes
Perhaps the most basic question we ask ourselves is one about identity.
Does a certain state of affairs exist? What is this thing I am confronting?
What is its nature? What qualities does it reveal? Answers to these questions, as we have shown in Chapters 3 through 7, can range from simple
claims to complicated comparisons.
In its next basic operation, the mind enters time. It sees things not
simply as "beingJ'-having existence, attributes, and definition-but as
"becoming." We see things come into existence and pass out of existence
in time. We see a before and an after and ask, "Why? How did it get that
way?" The answer to this question is a cause. We see a flower blooming in
the evening, and the next morning we find it shriveled and faded. When
we ask the why of before and after, we can find an answer in various ways,
depending on the system of thought available to us: the flower's soul grew
weary and fled; a frost last night froze the water in the plant tissues and
broke them; an evil sprite punished the flower because someone left food
in a bowl overnight. Of course, only one of these answers satisfies the
s y ~ t e mof thought we currently work in, but all of them could be called
causes because they account for the change from before to after. We can
even distinguish one culture from another by the kinds of causal explanations that satisfy it.
When we look for causes we look back in time; we start with the
completed event or thing and look back to see what might have caused it.
But causal thinking can work in forward as well as reverse. We can con-
148
. HOW DID IT GET THAT WAY?
front an event or thing and ask what effect it will cause. Effect is the after
and cause the before. When we see the fingers of frost on the window at
midnight, we can reason forward to the death of the flower in the morning.
The first answer to the question "Why?" is often not enough. If you try
to explain to a four-year-old that a flower died because the frost came, the
child will want to know why the frost came. If you answer that the frost
came because it is the season for frost, the child will still ask, "Why?" Most
attempts to answer a four-year-old's "Why?" turn into cosmological explorations until the child learns the futility of going back too far in the
search for causes. Nevertheless, we often have to go partway back, and
that is the first complication in finding a cause. What causes the cause? We
can get into an infinite regression looking for the cause behind the cause
behind the cause. Practical purposes determine when we stop.
Sometimes even without going back, we cannot give only one answer
to the question "Why?" Suppose you want a new flower to replace the one
blighted by frost. If you think you can do anything about causing a new
flower, you have already done some causal reasoning: "A flower grows
from a seed. If I put a seed in the ground, a flower will grow." So you take
a seed from the dried flower, place it in the ground next to the dead one
and wait. All through November and December nothing happens. It does
not take a brilliant mind to realize that planting the seed was not enough,
that something else must be necessary to produce a flower. A flower is an
event with more than one cause. Here then is the second complication:
Sometimes several causes have to come together to produce a single effect.
How we answer a causal question also depends in part on what we want
to do. If we want to repeat an event, like growing a flower, we have to
know all the causes that are required to bring it about. But what if we want
to stop or prevent something? Suppose you want no more flowers to grow
by your doorstep because the death of the last ones distressed you so. You
know that the seeds are in the ground, and next spring the sun and rain
will make them grow. You cannot turn off the sun and rain, but you can
prevent them from germinating the seed. You can dig up the seed and feed
it to your canary, put a rock over the spot that no shoot could move, or
saturate the soil with poison so that nothing grows there for a century or
more. Here, then, is a new wrinkle in answering the question of cause. You
have zeroed in on those causes that you can remove or block. When you
interfere in causal processes, you look for the causes that are within your
grasp, the ones you can do something about.
Our thinking about causes, then, is shaped by what we want to do with
them. We may simply want to explain them to our own and others'
satisfaction. Such explanations are still arguments because competing versions can be constructed. O r we may want to repeat them to bring about
an effect again; or we may want to block them to stop the result or even
to change them to improve the effect. To do any of these things, to any
degree, we need to understand causes as fully as possible.
THE KINDS OF CAUSES
149
To help our understanding of causes, we can learn to label them in a

number of ways; each way gives us a slightly different notion of how a
cause works. In order to make these labels usable as aids in thinking about
causes, we have organized them into sets. Here is the procedure for using
these sets. First have a clear idea of what you are investigating. Are you
looking for the causes of a physical object or state, an isolated event, or
a trend? Are you sure the effect whose causes you are investigating really
exists? There is no sense investigating an increase in the average size of
women's feet if there has been no such increase.
Next you can try a set of causes the way you try out a frame for a
picture. This frame can work in two ways: It can send you looking for
something that will fit in it, or it can impose order on the information you
have already found. Some of the causal terms in the following list will fit
the information you find and thus give you a useful vocabulary for talking
about the case at hand. Use this list, in the first place, as an aid for your
own thinking. Some of these terms overlap and not all of them will be
equally useful. The same cause can sometimes be called by several names;
call it by whichever name is most useful, and don't assume that you have
to find a cause to match every label. Think of this list primarily as an
impetus for causal brainstorming, for building a model of the relationships
among the possible causes you identify.
SET 1: CONDITIONS, INFLUENCES, AND

PRECIPITATING CAUSES
Conditions
Usually, many conditions lie behind an event-the physical setting, the
social climate, the historical time, all the attendant circumstances natural
and artificial. Conditions make up the background for an effect, but they
are not necessarily separate events themselves; they can be situations that
persist in time, like force fields that shape an event within their domain.
Some conditions may be crucial, others not worth mentioning, given
your audience and purpose. If you are explaining the causes of a forest fire,
you would mention the crucial conditions of a prolonged dry spell and a
prevailing wind. But if you are talking about a freak accident, someone
killed by a cornice falling off a tall building, for example, you would not
mention gravity as an important condition behind the event. Everyone
knows gravity is a condition behind every event that occurs on the earth.
We usually think of a condition as passive, the setting for the action
initiated by the more important causes. Nevertheless, we cannot put on a
play without a stage. There could have been no great age of European
exploration without certain conditions-ships that could cross the sea and
150
unexplored lands on the other side. Conditions are usually part of causal
arguments when our main purpose is explanation. They figure in historical
arguments and arguments about the success or failure of a person, or
business, or other social enterprise.
Influences
In common usage, infiuence is really just another word for condition. But we
are reserving influence for those conditions affecting the rate at which an
effect takes place or the degree to which it happens. rhat is, an influence
cannot bring about or prevent an effect, but it can make the effect happen
more quickly or more slowly, intensify or diminish it. Think of influences
as cheerleaders at a football game. They do not really cause the cheering;
spectators always do some cheering. But cheerleaders do intensify the
cheering and speed it up, getting cheers from the crowd even before the
game begins. The sharp stock market decline of October 1987 had multiple
and complex causes, but many experts investigating the event cited the use
of computerized trading as an influence, a cause intensifying the effect.
Precipitating Causes
Conditions and influences prepare for an effect, but a precipitating cause
comes along and actually forces it to happen. A precipitating cause is like
that one extra salt crystal that precipitates a solid out of a supersaturated
solution. The precipitating cause usually happens right before the effect,
like the last straw that breaks the camel's back.
Remember the conditions for a forest fire-a dry spell and a prevailing
wind. A bolt of lightning could act on these conditions as a precipitating
cause, igniting the forest. Or an earthquake that shakes a loosened cornice,
which falls and kills a pedestrian, would be a precipitating cause. It is the
last thing that needs to happen before the event itself.
We usually think of wars as having precipitating causes that act on ripe
conditions. The assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand at Sarajevo is
considered the precipitating cause of World War I; the abduction of Helen
of Troy was the precipitating cause of the Trojan War. And even trends
can have a precipitating cause: The Beatles' long hair precipitated a decade
of change in the appearance of young people. But it is easier to see precipitating causes when they themselves are dramatic events and when they
precede events with clear beginnings.
Precipitating causes are not by nature different from any other kind of
cause. You cannot say with certainty that any particular kind of event is
a precipitating cause. A border raid by Arabs or Israelis, for instance, may
THE KINDS OF CAUSES
. 151
or may not precipitate a wider conflict. In the case of war, we can identify
a precipitating cause only by hindsight. But in other cases, particularly
where nature's laws take over, we can be more certain. Touching a match
to a firecracker will inevikably precipitate a reaction.
EXERCISE
Here is a list of events. Think u p some of the plausible conditions or
influences behind them and the precipitating causes that could have acted
to bring them about.
Example
The seizing of the American embassy in Teheran

by Iranian militants.
Condition
Deteriorating diplomatic relationship between

the United States and Iran.
Influence
The coming to power of the Ayatollah

Khomeini.
The shah's entry into the United States for
medical treatment.
Precipitating cause
1. The Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident.

2. President Nixon's resignation.
3. The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

4. The beginning of World War I1 for the United States.
5.
The popularity of Michael Jackson.
These specific examples may jog your imagination into recalling other
events whose causes can be examined usefully this way: any political
victory or defeat, any sports victory or defeat, business success or failure,
any sudden fame or infamy. You can even look for conditions, influences,
and precipitating causes of events in your own life.
SET 2: PROXIMATE AND REMOTE CAUSES

Unlike the model presented in set 1, which sees background conditions
operated on by a precipitating cause, a framework of proximate and remote
causes helps us separate causes according to time.
152
Proximate Causes
A proximate cause is one that comes close to an effect in time. A precipitating cause can also be a proximate cause, but an effect can have several
proximate causes though only one precipitating cause.
It is useful to distinguish passive persistent conditions from proximate
causes that are unique events themselves. Suppose we are looking for the
causes of the final selection of a presidential candidate. The choice is the
result not only of conditions that have built up over the last four years and
even longer-the economy, foreign relations, the energy situation. It is also
the result of events that happen during the months and even days before
the party's final choice is announced at a convention-the various primary
victories, media disasters, deals, and withdrawals that sway delegates'
votes. These happenings can be labeled proximate causes because they
occur relatively close in time to the final effect, the choice of a particular
candidate.
Remote Causes
A proximate cause operates immediately to bring about an effect; a remote
cause is best seen as the cause of a cause. Some causal explanations will
not satisfy an audience unless the causes behind causes or before them in
time are examined. Obviously, all events are connected with events before
them, but we do not have to go back to the dawn of history to give
satisfactory explanations. We would not explain the explosive growth of
microcomputer technology by going back to Stone Age reliance on chipped
flint arrowheads. We have to sense how far back we need to go given the
topic and audience.
In general, a significant remote cause is one linked to its effect by an
inevitable chain. It has been argued, for example, that the building of the
Great Wall of China was a cause of the fall of Rome. That is about as
remote as a cause can be, but these two events, widely separated in time
and space, can be connected by identifying the links between them. The
barbarians, stopped by the Great Wall to the east, bounced back to the
west and did not rest, in fact, until they got to Rome.
When do we look for remote causes? We look for them especially when
we analyze historical events; we could even say that history is the search
for remote causes. History goes back in time to identify roots and comprehend what needs to be known to produce a sense of understanding or
perhaps of control. The same search for remote causes is often necessary
when we want to understand the causes of individual personal actions; we
want to know the significant starting points of a neurosis, a marital breakdown, a successful career, an Olympic gold medal. We go back until we
THE KINDS O F CAUSES
. 153
think we have found all the causes that contributed significantly to the
effect; and in considering natural phenomena, where we deal more with
fact than speculation, we go back until we have a full set of causes, enough
to repeat the event if we could.
Of course, where proximate causes end and remote causes begin is a
matter of debate, resolved in part by the purpose of your causal argument.
If we are focusing on an event at the end of a week, what happens one day
before can be proximate and six days before, remote. But in the case of a
presidential nomination, what happens on the first day of the convention,
or the week before, or during the primaries, or just after the previous
election-any of these can be thought of as a remote cause, the cause of
a cause. It all depends on your time frame. The distinguishing feature of
a remote cause, then, is not any set quantity of time between it and the
effect, but that it is the cause of a cause.
EXERCISE
Look for remote and proximate causes of events like the following.
1. The
stock market crash of October 1987.

The disappearance of the dinosaurs.
3. The move of any sports team from one city to another.
4. Marilyn Monroe's suicide.
5. The victory of FDR in 1932.
2.
SET 3: NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CAUSES

We use the framework of necessary and sufficient causes particularly when
we want to know what is required to repeat, slow down, prevent, facilitate-in short, to interfere with a causal process. We want to know only
what is required to bring about or prevent an effect. We do not necessarily
want to trace causes any further than is sufficient to give us power over
them.
Necessary Causes or Conditions

As its name tells us, a necessary cause or condition is one in whose absence
an effect cannot occur. It is permanently and in some cases uniquely
154
HOW DID IT GET THAT WAY?
associated with its effect. For example, oxygen is a necessary condition for
a fire; in fact, we would not even bother to mention it as the cause of a
fire because we take its presence for granted. Similarly, a virus is the
necessary cause of a cold. If you can distinguish your symptoms from hay
fever or allergy well enough to know you have a cold, you can be certain
that a virus has colonized your mucous membranes. In the case of many
infectious diseases, once we have identified the disease correctly, we know
exactly what kind of virus or bacteria caused it; there is a unique association between a virus and its disease, between some necessary causes and
their effects.
The distinguishing characteristic of a necessary cause is that we can
reason back to it with certainty. Given the effect, we know that certain
causes or conditions had to be present to bring it about. If you know that
someone has a valid college diploma, you can infer with certainty that he
passed a required number of courses. You cannot infer anything with
certainty about what he has learned. If you meet someone with a National
Merit Scholarship, you can infer that she received a very high score on the
SAT exam; Merit Scholarships are not awarded through a local politician
or on the basis of need, or because of a promise to serve in the Navy for
four years after college.
Even though you can reason back with certainty from an effect to a
necessary cause, you cannot turn the process around. That is, the presence or
occurrence of the necessary cause is not always enough to predict the effect.
Not all high-scoring high-school seniors win National Merits, and you do
not have a fire just because you have oxygen.
You can always invent a necessary cause: The necessary cause of poverty is not
having enough money; the necessary cause of a dent in a fender is that
something hit it; the necessary cause of famine is not enough food to go
around. All of these statements are facts; they name necessary causes that
you can reason back to with certainty. But they do not help your thinking
about causality very much. You really want to know what caused these
inevitable necessary causes.
Another kind of cause that is always necessary is the absence of anything
to prevent the effect. We know that when anything happens, nothing
stopped it from happening. If a house burns down, the fire was not detected and put out in time. Searching for a cause that would necessarily
block an effect is useful if you want to reverse the causal process. In your
next house, you will install smoke alarms and fire extinguishers.
Sufficient Causes
Once again, imagine yourself confronting an effect and trying to reason
back to its causes. Let us say it is that same forest fire. You can be certain
THE KINDS OF CAUSES
155
that the necessary causes and conditions were present: combustible material, oxygen, an igniting agent, and the absence of what would have
stopped the fire. But even though you know an igniting agent would
have to be present, several possibilities could fill that niche-a carelessly
thrown match, a bolt of lightning, an imperfectly extinguished camper's
fire, or carefully planned arson. These rival possibilities can be described
as suficient causes. Any one of them, given the necessary conditions,
could have started the fire. A suficient cause is one in whose presence the effect
musf occur. Sometimes several causes must combine to satisfy this requirement.
Suppose you stumble over a dead body. You know that the necessary
causes of death are the cessation of heartbeat and breathing and the absence of anything to keep them going artificially. But no coroner's report
ever recorded the cause of death as cessation of breathing. That is not an
interesting answer.
The coroner called to the scene will test out a number of explanations.
Death has many sufficient causes, causes in whose presence it must occur
if nothing intervenes: heart failure, stroke, strangulation, hemorrhage, poison. Of course, examination of the body will narrow down the list of
sufficient causes; if the body is unmarked, then death by violent external
means is ruled out. Autopsy will eventually reveal the sufficient cause. We
talk about sufficient cause, then, when an event has many possible causes,
any one of which is enough to bring it about.
In human affairs, most sufficient causes are not necessary causes. Take
divorce as an example. It can be brought about by a number of thingsdesertion, adultery, mental cruelty-no one of which is a necessary cause,
one in whose absence divorce cannot occur. Any one of them may be
sufficient, however.
EXERCISE
What are the necessary and/or sufficient causes behind the following
effects?
1. Getting an A in a course.
2. A particular plane crash.
3. The popularity of a particular movie or kind of movie.
4. The expansion of deserts around the world.

5.
A disease, such as cancer, or phenomena such as strokes or heart attacks.
156
OTHER KINDS OF CAUSES

Common usage has given the word causr many meanings that we must
consider because they are important in causal argument.
Responsibility
Obviously, responsibility as a cause exists only in human affairs. It often
comes up when we examine events that people have helped bring about,
and what people have brought about includes all the domain of history and
the social sciences, and most of what gets into the daily newspaper.
Responsibility can be assigned because of what someone either has done
or has not done. For example, an ambassador who sets up a conference can
be a cause of improved relations between two countries. O n the other
hand, an ambassador who initiates no overtures to the host country-sets
up no conferences, throws no parties-can by such inaction cause deteriorating relations between two countries.
Right away, we can see that in considering a human being who either
acts or doesn't act, we are also considering the idea of intention. What does
a person mean to cause by either acting or not acting, and to what extent
is a person responsible for what he or she does not intend? Consider the
enormous difference it makes deciding punishment for someone's death if
the act was done intentionally or not. We think of human intention as a
cause; if someone wills a result and acts on that will, then that person is
a cause. If, for instance, you want to celebrate your birthday, and you
invite thirty people and buy the cake, then you are the cause of a birthday
party. If you want to be physically fit, and you run, do push-ups, and play
tennis, your will is then as much the cause of improvement in your body
as any exercises you do.
These are examples of intentional acts (sending out invitations and
doing exercises) that are causes. It is also possible to intend not to act, and
doing nothing can also be a cause. Foreign policy, for example, which we
assume is largely a matter of human intention, consists as much of actions
deliberately not taken as of actions taken. Decision makers in the State
Department resolve not to interfere, not to send letters of protest, not to
invade, not to respond to provocations, and these intended omissions can
have their effects as well as intended acts.
We are on sure ground in identifying responsibility when the acts
whose causes we are investigating fall within someone's domain of responsibility. Doctors' domain of responsibility is the health of their patients;
teachers', the instruction of their students; parents', the welfare of their
children. If a patient dies because a disease was misdiagnosed, we do not
THE KINDS OF CAUSES
157
ask any questions about intentions. The effect was clearly in the doctor's
domain of responsibility. Whenever we can place an effect within someone's domain of responsibility, it does not matter whether the human
cause of that effect was intentional or not.
Questions of responsibility lead us into deep ethical waters. Sometimes
it is difficult to decide whose domain of responsibility an action falls under
or how far a domain of responsibility extends. Were the citizens of the
United States responsible for the internment of Japanese-Americans at the
beginning of World War II? How do you judge the French who collaborated with the Nazis? O r the candidate whose aide misappropriated
campaign funds supposedly without the candidate's knowledge?
EXERCISE
What human responsibility was involved in the coming about of the
following events?
1. The execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
2. The Iran-Contra scandal.
3. The success of the first moon landing.
4. The chemical contamination of the Love Canal area.
5. The space shuttle Challenger disaster.
Absence of a Blocking Cause

When is the lack of a cause a cause? How can something that does not
happen cause something that does? Picture a wedding. The clergyman
looks around and asks, "Is there any reason why these two should not be
joined together?" If no one steps forward and the ceremony is completed,
we can say that one cause of the marriage was the absence of interference.
Something that did not happen helped to bring about something that did.
Thus, the absence of restraints, impediments, blocks, inhibitions can actually help bring about an effect.
We can also turn the example around. Suppose your friend Bernie never
gets married. The cause of this event not happening is the absence of what
it would take to make it happen: No one asked him, and he asked no one.
Therefore, when something does not happen, the absence of what would
make it happen is a cause of its not happening.
We can always claim, as we said before, that a necessary cause is the
absence of anything that would have prevented the effect. However, we
158
seldom bother to reckon up all the missing causes when we are trying to
explain why an event came about. But we certainly would pay attention
to possible blocking causes when we want to prevent an effect. For instance, we might say that the cause of a forest fire's spreading was the
absence of a firebreak to stop it. If we want to prevent future forest fires
from spreading, we will provide a blocking cause like a firebreak. Of
course, looking for absent blocking causes can be endless. If the forest fire
were started by careless campers, it would be senseless to speculate about
what might have prevented them from going camping that weekend.
EXERCISES
To what extent did the following events occur because of the absence of
causes that would have prevented them?
1. The
2.
3.
4.
5.
Iran-Iraq war.
The disappearance of the Midwestern prairie.
The loss of a famous monument or building.
Dutch elm blight.
The spread of the gypsy moth or Japanese beetle.
Think of things that diminished or happened less frequently because

something prevented them.
1. Fewer
people have been voting in recent presidential elections.
2. The failure of the revival of the miniskirt.
The absence of progress in the space program.

4. The decline in the birth rate in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s.
5. The decline in foreign-language programs in American high schools and
universities.
3.
Reciprocal Causes
!nforming all our discussion of causes so far is an image of causes and
effects lined u p along a one-way street. We begin at a cause and we move
ahead to an effect farther down the road, and that effect can be the cause
of something still farther down. But this model of a one-way street, clear
and tidy to our minds, can oversimplify reality. Instead, we can have a
situation of reciprocal causality where cause and effect feed each other. In
THE KINDS OF CAUSES
159
other words, traffic on the "causeway" can go in two directions; an effect

can turn around and influence the cause that caused it.
Here are some familiar examples of reciprocal causality: Higher prices
cause increased wage demands, and increased wage demands cause higher
prices; success causes self-confidence, and self-confidence causes success;
consumer demand inspires the development of new products, and the
development of new products creates more consumer demand. In all of
these situations, a one-way model fails to represent the actual two-way
traffic pattern. These examples of reciprocal causality are all generalizations; they stand for a number of similar instances and they abstract from
them a persistent pattern of causality. In fact, reciprocal causality can exist
only on the level of generalization. When we deal with unique, individual
events, we are better off with the one-way model.
A repeating sequence of cause and effect is a sign of reciprocal causality.
Suppose you hear a joke that makes you laugh. That laughter makes the
next joke seem even funnier, and in a few minutes even jokes about
chickens crossing roads convulse you. We can look at this sequence of
events as a one-way chain of cause and effect.
--+ laugh +funnier joke

more laughing +a real knee slapper +hysteria
funny joke
This is a correct diagram of the events in time, but when we see that the
events are really repeating themselves, we can pull the chain around to
make a circle that represents reciprocal causality.
perception of humo;
Even when a repeating series is not obvious, you can still try out a
reciprocal model and see if there is any evidence to make it stick. You may
know, for instance, that sunspots made Skylab fall. Is it likely that Skylab
had any influence on the sun? Of course not. No two-way causality there.
But suppose you are analyzing the factors that have influenced the size of
cars Americans buy. You begin with a simple one-way model: Automobile
manufacturers have created the taste for large cars. Historically, American
car manufacturers have made the most desirable, top-of-the-line cars look
like large, heavy boats. Now you can ask yourself, can the causality go the
other way as well-has public demand been influencing the size of the cars
Detroit produces? Is there any evidence that the public ever had a chance
to choose smaller, economical cars over big gas guzzlers? Some might argue
yes, because smaller American cars have regularly appeared on the market,
from the Studebaker to the Vega to the Fiesta. The public has had a choice
160
and therefore a chance to influence Detroit. In this case, reciprocal causality

has been at work: Detroit certainly has influenced public demand for big
cars, but the public in turn has influenced Detroit.
Causality in human affairs is especially likely to be reciprocal. When we
try to impose a causal model on the mass of individual and group interactions that make up a society, we find things bouncing back and forth.
When causes persist, effects can continue as trends rather than appear once
as single events. What has caused the increase in the number of divorces?
Why are more people entering business schools? The causes of social
trends like these are complicated. Perhaps at some point we ought to
abandon our model of reciprocal causality as a two-way street for some
image of a Roman piazza crisscrossed by free-for-all rush-hour traffic.
EXERCISE
Think of causes for the following phenomena which can, in turn, be caused
by their effects.
The commission of an unusual kind of crime, such as an airline hijacking,
results in a news report, and extensive news coverage causes others to commit
the same crime, leading to more news reports.
What can both cause and be caused by the following?

1. The rejuvenation of some inner cities.
2 . Dressing well for work.
3. The run of similar television programs.
4. Mental depression.
5. The desire to learn.
Chance
Many people think that chance is the opposite of causality, that some
things "just happen" and others are caused. Meeting your Aunt Tillie "by
accident" on the street is a chance event, but meeting your friend at 3:00
at the lion statue in front of the Art Institute is caused by intention. Does
that mean that all events that happen by accident are beyond causal
explanation? Not so. In a sense, both kinds of events are caused even
though we could label the one event chance. There was a cause (reason)
for Aunt Tillie to be walking down the street where she was and a reason
161
for you to be in the same place at the same time. We can reserve the word
chance for the fact that these two things happened at the same time. Chance
is the unexpected coming together of things that have their own causes.
O n e kind of chance is the occurrence of a random event. The physical
world provides us with many examples of random events: the tunneling
of electrons, the passage of cosmic radiation through our bodies, the spontaneous mutation of the DNA molecule, the emission of radiation from a
decaying radioisotope. We cannot pinpoint exactly when such events will
happen, but we can know when they are more likely to happen. No one
can predict exactly where and when lightning will strike; but that does not
make it sensible to stand on a treeless hill, wear metal-spiked shoes, and
brandish a golf club during an electric storm.
We cannot predict the precise result of the toss of a coin, the throw of
dice, or the turn of a card. But since we know all the possible results, we
can calculate the probability of any one result occurring. The chance of a coin
turning up heads is one in two, of a die showing two is one in six, of an
ace appearing is one in thirteen. That kind of chance can be expressed as
a mathematical probability. The other kind of chance, the "just happened"
kind we discovered in our Aunt Tillie example, is beyond precise mathematical prediction, but the separate things that come together have their
own causes.
EXERCISE
What causes had to come together in order to produce the following
effects?
1. The
invention of Teflon.
The way you met your best friend.
3. Last year's World Series or Superbowl victory.
4. Any major airplane crash.
5. The discovery of a political scandal.
2.
THE CASE OF GEORGE

Let us take one event and think about all the possible causes behind it. We
can stimulate our thinking by taking our sets of causes and seeing how
many we can fill in with the facts of the situation. Here is the event whose
162
causes we are examining: Our friend George has just flunked freshman
chemistry, Chem 13, the first course for chemistry majors at the university.
Conditions
The conditions of our friend's failure are all the persisting circumstances
behind him and the course. The search for conditions can thus go very far
back. In George's case, the existence of the university, of chemistry ,as a
discipline, and the pressure on young people to go to college are all, in a
sense, conditions behind his failure. But, obviously, these givens of reality
are not worth mentioning, even in a thorough search for causes. Even
George himself, wondering why he failed, would not think of these. The
following conditions, however, might be worth mentioning:
1. Chem 13 is a fast-paced course.
2. The chemistry department uses Chem 13 to weed out potentially
weak chemistry majors.
3. George's lab instructor spoke very poor English.
4. George's personality-he is lazy and tends to blame others.
5. George had a poor high-school background. His school offered only
one term of chemistry, the instructor was old and taught outdated
concepts, and the lab was underequipped.
6. Chem 13 met at 8:00 A.M. three days a week.
Influences
Influences are difficult to distinguish from conditions and perhaps separating them is sometimes arbitrary. But certainly the pressure of these external problems accelerated George on the road to failure:
1. George had trouble with a roommate who never studied.
2. This was his term for fraternity rushing.
3. George partied every Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday night.
Precipifafing Cause
This is the event that comes closest in time to the effect and makes it
happen. In fact, if the precipitating cause had not happened, the final
effect, the failure itself, would not have happened.
1. George flunked the final, which counted for 60 percent of the grade.
THE KINDS OF CAUSES
163
Set 2
Remote Causes
Remember that we must set our own limits as to what we will call remote
in time from the effect. In this case, it seems reasonable to call a remote
cause anything relevant that happened before George took Chemistry 13.
1. George's high-school preparation in chemistry was poor.
2. His parents fostered negative qualities in his personality.
3. His desire to major in chemistry was probably unrealistic.
4. George's adviser placed him in a course beyond his preparation.
Proximate Causes
Since we have labeled "remote" significant things that happened before
George took the course, then we must label "proximate" whatever happened during the course.
1. George's attendance was poor all term; he missed one and sometimes
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
two or three of the weekly lectures.

He got a D on the midterm.
He did not complete two out of five lab experiments.
Two weeks before the final, George caught the flu.
He did not study for the final.
He did not know enough chemistry to pass the final.
Set 3
Necessary Cause
This is, quite simply, the cause without which the effect would not have
occurred. It is the only cause to which we can reason back with certainty,
even when we know nothing else about an effect except that it happened.
Often, the necessary cause is a restatement of the effect.
1. The necessary cause of flunking Chemistry 13 is failure to meet the
requirements to pass it.
SuiYicient Cause
This is the cause in whose presence the effect must occur. As the semester
unfolded, two sufficient causes developed to guarantee that George would
fail the course:
164
1. Not completing all lab work satisfactorily.

2 . A failing average on the two exams.
Set 4
Responsibility
George is a human being, and a human being wrote the F on his grade card,
so we here must consider all the complications of intended and unintended
acts that add up to human responsibility. This is the list of people implicated in George's failure:
1. George's parents were all too willing to sympathize uncritically with
him, never suggesting he might be responsible for his own failures.

2 . His high-school chemistry teacher was uninformed and uninspiring.
3. His adviser: In a sense George's adviser is responsible for letting him
take a course he was unprepared for. George's schedule was his

domain of responsibility. But could the adviser have known how
unprepared George really was?
4. George's fraternity brofhers made unreasonable demands on his time.
5 . The chemistry departmenf professor refused to give George the deferred
grade he asked for after his bout of flu, two weeks before the final.
Was the professor also responsible for allowing someone incompetent in English to teach a lab section? (But then, did the chemistry
professor distribute the teaching assistantships?)
6 . George himself. Of course.
Absence o f Cause
These are the causes that could realistically have prevented George's failure and did not.
1. George could have taken command of himself (imposed a strict study
schedule and hired a chemistry tutor) when he discovered early in

the course that he was not comprehending the material.
2. A deferred grade would have prevented, or at least postponed, that
final F.
3. George could have dropped the course while it was still possible.
Reciprocal Cause
This is a cause that intensifies or perpetuates the very thing that caused
it.
165
1. Because he had not studied enough, given his deficiencies, George
got a D on the midterm. Getting the D disheartened rather than

stimulated him. As a result, he applied himself even less in the
second half of the course, so that by the time he caught the flu, all
was lost.
Chance
Two kinds of chance plagued George. A random natural event struck him
down, and he was also the victim of an unfortunate combination of conditions.
1. He caught the flu two weeks before the final, although in crowded
dorm conditions it is not surprising George picked up a virus.

2. Poor motivation, distractions, an inadequate background, and a hard
course-all these conditions and more came together at one time for
one person.
George's Case
A comprehensive listing of causes is only a preliminary step. In making a
causal argument, the arguer, always with a particular audience and purpose
in mind, chooses and arranges causes from that complete list. George has
to account for failing chemistry to a number of audiences-his parents, his
adviser, his professor, and even himself. He chooses, in effect, from the
master list of causes and makes different arguments for different audiences
and purposes.
First, George calls his parents to warn them about the F in chemistry
coming in the mail. He tells them how he was wiped out by flu the last
two weeks of the term. He tried to study, but his temperature was 102
degrees. The course is designed to flunk out as many students as possible
anyway, he tells his parents, and the exams are ridiculously hard. Furthermore, he complains, when he went to talk to his professor, the guy was
never around. In response to this tale of woe, George's parents murmur
sympathetically, "How unlucky our George has always been."
Later that day, George goes to his adviser to justify his failure. He tells
him about the flu, complains that he never understood the lab assistant and
that the professor refused to give him a deferred grade a week before the
final. He also informs his adviser that he talked to other students taking
the course and discovered how poor his own high-school chemistry program was in comparison to theirs. He wonders out loud to his adviser
whether he should have been allowed to take Chem 13. Perhaps he should
have taken an easier chemistry course first.
166
At the beginning of the next term, George goes to his Chemistry 13

professor to see if he can do anything to get the grade changed. He pulls
out the flu, the insufficient high-school background, the poor advice he
received, the lab assistant's broken English-all the causes beyond his
control. He even remarks that the professor was not around when he came
to look for him after the midterm. The professor asks if George came
during office hours. George says no, he had a class then. The professor
replies that George should have asked for an appointment, either before
or after a lecture, or with the department secretary.
Then the unimpressed professor gives his version of the causes behind
George's F. George's attendance was poor throughout the course, he did
not complete his lab reports, his midterm grade was D, and he failed the
final. Therefore he failed the course. In short, the professor pays no attention to all the remote causes and conditions that worked on George. He
acknowledges only the presence or absence of sufficient cause to pass the
course. The question of who was at fault or whether there were extenuating circumstances is of no concern to him.
George goes away upset and admits to himself for the first time that,
in spite of all the excuses, he was responsible for his own failure. He simply
had not studied enough. Between his fraternity rushing and partying with
his roommate, who seemed to be majoring in leisure, he had filled all his
weekends and many of his week nights. True, he was ill-prepared and the
course was hard, but he had been too lazy to get up for many of the 8:00
A.M. lectures. He had planned on cramming for the final when the flu
intervened. But he had to admit that by the last two weeks of the term,
all was hopeless.
Like most human events, George's failure had many causes. Though he
may not have formulated a list of all possible causes, as we did above,
George argued instinctively by selecting causes to fit his purpose and
audience. He told his parents only what would arouse their sympathy. He
omitted mentioning how much time he had spent on partying and rushing
activities. For his adviser he also brought out only the things that would
arouse sympathy, and he emphasized his poor high-school b; ckground
and placement in a difficult course, stressing the one cause within the adviser's domain of responsibility. George tried a similar approach on the professor. This time he stressed his bad background and causes within the
professor's domain of responsibility-the lab assistant, the difficulty of the
course and of finding the professor, and the refusal of a deferred grade.
What George did, in effect, was shape each argument so that one cause
dominated, and in human affairs the dominant cause is often seen as a
person responsible. In making his case to his adviser and his professor,
George identified the dominant cause as the one that moved responsibility
into their domain; talking to his parents, George was concerned only with
removing responsibility from himself. In other words, these different audi-
THE KINDS OF CAUSES
. 167
ences shaped George's argument. But when the audience was George himself, then he was most willing to take on personal responsibility. He looked
at what he might have done to prevent failure, rather than at what others
did or what circumstances influenced.
When George singled out a dominant cause, he said really that that one
cause was enough to bring the effect about and that without it the effect
would not have occurred. You should recognize this combination as the
definition of a necessary and sufficient cause. In blaming his professor,
George assumed that his professor had an active responsibility to help each
of his students pass the course. He also assumed that if his professor had
been more helpful, all the other causes would have gone for nothing. In
effect, he elevated his professor's positive responsibility into a necessary
and sufficient cause. George's professor would not share this assumption;
most people do not believe that they are responsible for guaranteeing the
success of others.
Wllen George admitted to himself that he was the cause of his own
failure, he operated on the assumption that we are all responsible for most
of what happens to us. He realized that he should have been able to
overcome his poor background and all the other conditions against him.
In the end George agrees with his professor on the dominant cause in this
case. A fatalist, looking down on the whole situation, unconcerned with
assigning responsibility or finding alterable causes, might call it all unchangeable bad luck.
CONCLUSIONS FROM GEORGE'S CASE: THE TWO

THINGS CAUSAL ARGUMENT CAN DO
We have presented both an elaborate accounting of the causes behind
George's failure and George's own attempts to single out dominant causes
for different audiences. These once again illustrate two major purposes of
causal argument.
First, you may simply be interested in explaining as many as possible
of the causes behind an effect. You want to identify the proximate and
remote causes, the conditions, every responsible agent, the role of chance,
and any plausible blocking causes that were not there. Anyone interested
in completeness might make a case study of George's failure and produce
a list similar to the one we did above.
You may think that a full accounting of causes behind an event is a piece
of informative rather than argumentative writing. Not so. Although arguing that many causes produce an effect is less challenging than arguing that
only one or two did, you may still have to convince your reader that the
causes you name are plausible and that a different version of the events
168
is not plausible. And to have to convince is to argue. Let's return to George

to explain this point. Suppose you have come to condition number 5, his
poor high-school background. You may be able to assume the connection
between a poor high-school background and trouble with a college chemistry course, but you must give some concrete evidence that his background was indeed poor-for example, the fact that his high-school course
used a fourteen-year-old textbook. Furthermore, a causal explanation is
still an argument because you exclude some causes too remote or too
obvious to mention, like George's childhood or the pressures that overload
the chemistry department with majors who must be weeded out. So a full
causal explanation is still an argument, although an easy one with most
audiences.
The second purpose of causal argument is to emphasize one cause from
among many. This emphasizing can be done either to assign responsibility
or to intervene in the causal process. If the first, your purpose is similar to
that of a judge in a courtroom who simply wants to know if any party is
responsible under the law. If the second, the cause you single out depends
on how you want to intervene in the causal process. If you want to prevent,
then you look for a missing blocking cause to replace, or a necessary cause
to remove. If you want to foster, then you look for causes or influences that
can be created or initiated or charged up to increase the effect.
FOR YOU TO ANALYZE

The following passages show their writers' attempts at causal model building, that is, at explaining the proper relationship among causes. Identify
the various kinds of causes, using the labels introduced in this chapter.
All specific advice concerning how to read, how to take notes, how to tackle
problems, how to form good study habits, is secondary. There is one fundamental and indispensable requirement for effective study more basic than any rules
or technique. Without it real study is impossible though everything else be
favorable; with it results can be achieved even in ignorance of all the fine points
of how to study. This key requirement is a driving motive, an intense desire to
learn and to achieve, an interest in things intellectual, a "will to do" in your
scholastic work. If you would learn to study, first develop a feeling that you
want to master your studies and that you will master them. All else is subordinate
to that.
-Arthur W. Kornhauser,
How to Study
Schizophrenia probably has its roots in a biochemical abnormality within the

body. While there are those who dispute this view, the evidence at this point
THE KINDS OF CAUSES
. 169
appears highly persuasive and comes primarily from two sources. First, a large
body of research data indicates that schizophrenia has a genetic component.
That is to say, the tendency to manifest schizophrenic symptoms under stress
is, in large part, genetically based. While it has been known for many years that
schizophrenia tends to run in families (and, indeed, this knowledge has been
causal in the suspicion that faulty family rearing practices cause schizophrenia),
it is only recently that adoption studies and twin st-ldies have helped to tease
apart the genetic and environmental contributions to the illness. While the
genetic contribution is clear, nongenetic factors have also been implicated by
these same studies. Nonetheless, insofar as genes provide us with our basic
physical equipment, a genetic predisposition toward schizophrenia means that
some part of the body is malfunctioning or likely to malfunction under a certain
set of circumstances. Analogies with other medical diseases are common. Both
diabetes and hypertension run in families. They are not solely genetically determined. Rather, what is inherited is a predisposition to become ill in this way, given
the right set ot factors.
The other major source of evidence for a biological predisposition to schizophrenia comes from a recent treatment innovation. In 1955, clinicians in the
United States began using chlorpromazine (Thorazine) to treat schizophrenia.
The results were overwhelmingly positive. Many patients who had been withdrawn became communicative; many patients who had been assaultive became
calm; many patients who had lost touch with reality regained it. Both recent
clinical experience and controlled scientific studies have confirmed the initial
impression that the symptoms of schizophrenia are markedly and lastingly
reduced in many patients through the use of chlorpromazine and other related
drugs. . . .
-Richard R. D. Lewine and
Kayla F. Bernheim,
Schlzophrenta
JETLINER CREW BLAMED FOR SAN DIEGO CRASH
Mark Stevens
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) pinned responsibility

April 20 for the nation's worst air disaster on the crew of the Pacific Southwest
Airlines (PSA) jetliner that crashed last Sept. 25, but exhibits within the testimony gathered by the NTSB-and made available to the Monitor-strongly
suggest that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directives regarding "visual
separation" procedures at San Diego's Lindbergh Field would also lead the
NTSB to attach blame to the air-traffic controllers.
At the heart of the matter are FAA regulations which require pilots to "see
and avoid" other aircraft when landing under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) as the
PSA 727 was doing when it collided with a small Cessna, killing 137 persons
on both planes and 7 persons on the ground.
But one of the nation's leading air traffic safety experts, Dr. Maurice A.
170
Garbell, believes that the current system of air traffic control is unworkable
because it mandates that a pilot see other aircraft when the best a pilot can do
is look.
By a 3 to 1 vote, the NTSB said it was the responsibility of the flight crew
to keep the planes separated by visual means from other aircraft and that the
crew failed to "inform the controller when they no longer had other aircraft in
sight."
The board also cited the lack of any FAA rules which require controllers to
notify aircraft every time they appear on a radar screen to be on a potential
collision course with another plane.
O n its approach to Lindbergh Field, the PSA jet was under visual flight rules.
Cockpit tapes show that the crew had been advised that a small plane was in
the vicinity but that the crew lost sight of the smaller plane-if they ever saw
it-and was still looking when the two craft crashed.
The safety board said that the air traffic controllers also were misled by their
previous experiences with similar problems in the past that had required no
action on their part.
The FAA directives-exhibits 3M and 3H in the NTSB evidence-clarify
the procedures which air traffic controllers are supposed to follow in avoiding midair collisions in San Diego. They show that air traffic controllers at
Lindbergh Field and at nearby Miramar Station are required to ensure visual
separation for aircraft making practice approaches at the field. The Cessna
carried a student pilot and his instructor who were in the process of a training
flight.
The Cessna was in radio contact with Miramar Station. The PSA jet, while
in contact with Miramar during the approach to San Diego, had switched its
ground communication to Lindbergh tower just prior to the collision.
A letter of agreement between Miramar and Lindbergh says that "the tower
shall insure visual separation between all aircraft executing VFR practice approaches." In clarifying that letter, the FAA said May 13, 1976, that "it is the
intention of this statement that this visual separation will only be provided by
the tower controller, i.e., he sees the aircraft involved and assures that the
separation will remain constant or increase."
In at least two other memos issued after that, including one just eight days
before the crash, the FAA reiterated the same procedures to controllers at
Miramar and Lindbergh.
While the exact circumstances of the crash were not explicitly addressed in
the FAA orders, Dr. Garbell says that "I feel the concept of visual tower control
is necessary-even for VFR aircraft in these conditions-and it is so clearly
spelled out that it should be binding on the tower."
Lengthy debate over the cause of the crash preceded the final vote, but in
the end only board member Francis H. McAdams said he felt the accident
should be blamed equally on the PSA flight crew and the air traffic control
system.
The FAA investigation into the crash led the agency last December to begin
upgrading the radar capability at 124 airports around the country, including
Lindbergh Field.
THE KINDS OF CAUSES
. 171
SAMPLE ANALYSIS
In the case of major airplane accidents, our government requires that an

appropriate federal agency investigate, sort out the relation of the various
causes, and finally determine the predominant cause. Since human beings
both acting and not acting-as well as machines, weather, and chance-are
usually involved in such accidents, the issue of responsibility, and of blame
given the disastrous outcome, often comes in.
The newspaper article reprinted here reports on the causal decision of
the National Transportation Safety Board in the case of a crash between
a jetliner and a small private plane at the San Diego airport. The plane was
landing, at the crew's request, under visual control. According to the regulations for such a landing, the crew was required to avoid any aircraft that
it saw. Unfortunately it could not see the small plane rising beneath it; the
two collided. Since the accident occurred while the crew was fully in
control of landing the plane, and no mechanical failures occurred, they are
held responsible for the crash as the first sentence says. This was the legal
decision of the NTSB. Much is at stake in such decisions by investigative
agencies. Their nominations for chief cause and responsibility may make
or break later court cases.
One member of the NTSB, however, would have named the entire air
traffic control system at fault as well as the crew in one ill-fated plane
flying under its procedures. As safety expert Dr. Garbell points out as well,
the crew can only look for other planes; they cannot avoid one they cannot
see. Any landing procedures that do not take this possibility into account
are faulty, and, therefore, perhaps this background condition should be
seen as the major cause of the accident.
The article also strongly suggests that the air traffic controllers at Lindbergh Field were also to "blame," or that, in other words, their deeds and
omissions might be seen as the most important cause. By chance the planes
were in radio contact with different ground controllers at the time of the
crash. But an FAA directive had clearly established the tower at Lindbergh
Field over the station at Miramar as the responsible agent for maintaining
visual separation between planes in the area. Although the exact circumstances of this crash were not outlined in the directive, the tower controllers were under an obligation to ensure separation between the planes. But
how far did they have to go to fulfill this obligation? They did inform the
crew of the jetliner that a small plane was in their vicinity. Therefore,
technically they had fulfilled their responsibility. The crew, in turn, failed
to report when they no longer had this aircraft in sight, if they ever did
have it in sight, and so the responsibility, and status as prime cause of the
crash, falls once again on the dead.
The reader may possibly have heard of a peculiar theory of the emotions,
commonly referred to in psychological literature as the Lange-James theory.
172
According to this theory, our emotions are tnainly due to those organic stirrings
that are aroused in us in a reflex way by the stimulus of the exciting object or
situation. An enlotion of fear, for example, or surprise, is not a direct effect of
the object's presence on the mind, but an effect of that still earlier effect, the
bodily commotion which the object suddenly excites; so that, were this bodily
commoti6n suppressed, we should not so much /eel fear as call the situation
fearful; we should not feel surprise, but coldly recognize that the object was
indeed astonishing. One enthusiast has even gone so far as to say that when we
feel sorry it is because we weep, when we feel afraid it is because we run away,
and not conversely. Some of you may perhaps be acquainted with the paradoxical formula. Now, whatever exaggeration may possibly lurk in this account of
our emotions (and 1 doubt myself whether the exaggeration be very great), it
is certain that the main core of it is true, and that the mere giving way to tears,
for example, or to the outward expression of an anger-fit, will result for the
moment in making the inner grief or anger more acutely felt. There is, accordingly, no better known or more generally useful precept in the moral training
of youth, or in one's personal self-discipline, than that which bids us pay
primary attention to what we do and express, and not to care too much for what
we Feel. If we only check a cowardly impulse in time, for example, or if we only
don 'f strike the blow or rip out with the complaining or insulting word that we
shall regret as long as we live, our feelings themselves will presently be the
calmer and better, with no particular guidance from us on their own account.
Action seems to follow feeling, but really action and feeling go together; and
by regulating the action, which is under the more direct control of the will, we
can indirectly regulate the feeling, which is not.
Thus the sovereign voluntary path to cheerfulness, if our spontaneous cheerfulness be lost, is to sit up cheerfully, to look round cheerfully, and to act and
speak as if cheerfulness were already there. If such conduct does not make you
soon feel cheerful, nothing else on that occasion can. So to feel brave, act as if we
were brave, use all our will to that end, and a courage-fit will very likely replace
the fit of fear. Again, in order to feel kindly toward a person to whom we have
been inimical, the only way is more or less deliberately to smile, to make
sympathetic inquiries, and to force ourselves to say genial things. One hearty
laugh together will bring enemies into a closer communion of heart than hours
spent on both sides in inward wrestling with the mental demon of uncharitable
Feeling. To wrestle with a bad feeling only pins our attention on it, and keeps it
still fastened in the mind: whereas, if we act as if from some better feeling, the old
bad feeling soon folds its tent like an Arab and silently steals away.
-William James, "The Gospel of
Relaxation," Talks to Teachers on Psychology:
arrd /o Students on Some of Life i Ideals
FOR YOU TO WRITE

A. Consider each of the following situations or trends and, using the sets
of causes outlined in this chapter, think of as many plausible causes for
them as you can.
THE KINDS OF CAUSES
173
1. College freshmen tend to gain weight.

2. Attendance at major-league baseball games has increased.
3. Symphony conductors tend to live a long time.
4. Enrollments in colleges of engineering have increased.

5. The unemployment rate has decreased.
6 . Coffee consumption has declined in the United States.
7. The average temperature has increased worldwide.
8. Soccer has become a much less popular sport.

9. Fewer women wear pants in public.
10. Interest in the liberal arts is increasing.
B. You have just performed the first step in brainstorming a causal

argument. Now you can investigate to find out which of the causes you
have hypothesized really operated significantly.
C. Write up a causal argument that emphasizes either a full accounting
or one dominant cause. You might find that one paper can combine these
two assignments.
D. Which cause you choose to emphasize out of a complete set of causes
depends on your audience and purpose. Here are some events and several
different audiences who would require different causal arguments. How
would your arguments differ for each audience? Choose the harder-toconvince audience and write up your argument.
1. The decision to attend your current college.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a. To a friend who chose a different college.

b. To your parents.
The decision to turn down a date.
a. To the person you refused.
b. To a close friend.
Your A in a course.
a. To yourself.
b. To a friend who didn't do as well.
The causes of the women's movement.
a. To a man.
b. To a woman.
One candidate's victory in any presidential election,
a. To a Republican.
b. To a Democrat.
The Tactics of Causal

Argument
Now that you know the kinds of causes and the general purposes of causal
argument, you are ready for the next question. How can you actually
convince an audience in writing that a cause and effect are linked? It is one
thing to name a possible cause, quite another to convince an audience that
it operates. Fortunately, convincing an audience is easier than you might
think because both arguer and audience will share a storehouse of assumptions about what causes what. You draw on that storehouse in causal
argument, just as you appeal to shared definitions in arguments about the
nature of things. If, for example, you argue for the characterization that
"Benedict Arnold was really a patriot," you must try to evoke a sharable
definition of patriot Similarly, if you argue for the causal claim that "Benedict Arnold's treason caused others to abandon the American side in the
Revolution," you are appealing to a sharable assumption, namely, that one
person's action can influence others.
AGENCY: OUR BASIC ASSUMPTION ABOUT

WHAT CAUSES WHAT
What convinces us that one thing causes another? Suppose we see a twoyear-old child fly forward on a swing, the mother pushing from behind.
THE TACTICS OF CAUSAL ARGUMENT
. 175
This is a capsule case of cause and effect, for we know that the mother's
push causes the child's motion on the swing. When we can see the actual
push and the forward motion that follows it, we have the most satisfying
kind of evidence of a causal connection between two actions, in this case
the push and the swing.
We need a word to stand for this most basic connection between a cause
and an effect. Let us use the word agency for this "touching" of cause and
effect, this link between them. In a sense, agency is the smallest unit of
cause. The simplest kind of agency is literal physical contact: the mother's
hand touches the child's back; lightning strikes a dry tree to ignite it; a car
bumps into a store window and shatters it.
We intuitively understand such physical agencies of force, motion,
resistance, and reaction. (And, of course, there are many other chemical
and physical agencies in nature, such as light, heat, motion, and chemical
reagents.) Even if we are not scientists, we have a common-sense understanding of how things work in the natural world. We know that plants
need water and sunlight to grow, although they can get too much of either.
We know that we cannot fry an egg without heat, that if we eat too much
we get fat, that cars need fuel.
But what agencies operate in individual lives, in social and historical
events? In any society, at any time, there are quite a number of accepted
agencies whose operation we believe in as readily as we believe in the
operation of physical law. Philosophers, psychologists, anthropologists,
and social scientists debate about what to call these agencies-motives,
instincts, or learned patterns of behavior. But we all recognize a believable
appeal to the way human nature works, in the same way we recognize how
physical nature works. We no more accept happiness as a motive for
murder than we would accept the power of rocks to fly.
What are some of these accepted agencies of human behavior? We
believe that people do things to imitate one another, and that they also do
things to be different from one another. We believe that people usually act to
maximize their own good (as they see the good) with the least amount of effort. We
also believe that people act to avoid pain. But since this text is not the place
for an analysis of human motivation, let us just say that certain fundamental motives, causes, or agencies of human action are widely accepted. And
these same agencies that move individuals also move groups, communities,
and even nations. They too imitate, rebel, seek their benefit, and minimize
pain and expense.
We will be able to understand the concept of agency better if we look
at some human cause-and-effect relationships and identify the assumed
agency in each. If we say that watching violent programs on television
causes violent behavior in children, the assumed agency is imitation. If we
say that living in a tract development caused Bertha to paint her house
pink, the assumed agency is the desire to be different. If we say that the
citizens of a community voted to increase taxes because they want to build
176
a new school, the assumed agency is the desire to maximize their own
good. If a nation builds a system of dams to prevent floods, the assumed
agency is the desire to avoid disaster. Of course, less obvious agencies may
also be operating; whether we argue about them depends on how much
we want to elaborate on the springs of human action.
Often when we connect a cause and an effect in argument, as in the
cases above, we do not even mention the agency between them. We assume
it. Fortunately, people in the same culture share more or less the same
assumptions about causal agency, about what causes what. So we are
usually able to claim that one thing causes another without going into
elaborate explanations. We develop our argument to the point where we
and our audience share assumptions about agency. We want the readers
to nod and say to themselves, "Yes, I believe that could cause that."
With agency in mind, we can distinguish between causal arguments that
assume agency and those that do not, those that get the reader's nod easily
and those that do not. Let us first look at a causal argument where agency
is obvious enough to be assumed.
Suppose you want to argue that juvenile pot smoking in a particular
community is in part caused by parents' drug and alcohol dependence.
Depending on your audience, you could spend much of your time in this
argument presenting evidence of the large number of children who smoke
pot and of the large number of their parents who smoke pot, take Valium,
and drink excessively. In short, your effort would go only into proving the
simultaneous existence of the two events you call the cause and the effect.
In this case, you bring the cause and the effect into juxtaposition and stop
because your audience will most likely assume the agency between them.
The agency between the parents and the children is imitation; you could
mention it to be emphatic, but you probably would not need to.
Now let us look at an example where agency cannot so easily be assumed. Two types of arguments fall into this category. First, there are
implausible agencies. Any argument that depends on an implausible
agency is likely to arouse the resistance and incredulity of its audience. If
a woman claims, for example, that her presence in a room causes spoons
to bend, books to levitate, and lamps to shatter, she is assuming an unbelievable agency. Most of us do not accept telekinesis as an agency connecting the human mind and physical movement. There are many other such
agencies currently unacceptable to educated audiences: copper bracelets
that cure arthritis; the Bermuda Triangle, which makes ships and planes
disappear; vision into the future by dreams, astrology, or biorhythms.
With an audience of unbelievers to assume that any of these is a causal
agent would be the death of argument. With such an audience an arguer
who seriously wants to claim that one of these mysterious forces caused
something must move the argument to a different level. He must argue for
agency itself, and establishing a new agency requires a major intellectual
effort.
THE TACTICS O F CAUSAL ARGUMENT
177
The other kind of argument where agency cannot simply be assumed

involves a distant cause. That is, the cause and the effect are so far apart
that we cannot see immediately the agency between them. If we claim that
a childhood disease is the cause of a heart attack at age sixty-five, that an
army's need for spurs gave rise to feudalism, that greased cartridges led to
the Indian Mutiny of 1857, we are likely to lose our audience because
assumable agency, the link between cause and effect, is missing. In these
cases we can supply agency by establishing a chain of causes. (See below for
a fuller discussion.)
You can now see the crucial importance of agency in causal argument.
In fact, the essence of causal argument is getting down to assumable agency
that your audience will accept. If you have assumable or acceptable agency,
you spend all your time in causal argument showing that cause and effect
exist and lining them up by any of the methods that follow. If you do not
have agency, you have to establish it. If you cannot establish it, you have
no causal argument.
EXERCISE
Describe the agencies that would plausibly operate between the following
pairs of causes and their effects. Are any of the linkages implausible because no assumption of agency is possible?
1. Parental strictness causes teenage rebelliousness.
2. One seventh-grade girl gets her ears pierced; two weeks later, fifteen other
seventh-grade girls get their ears pierced.

3. An old woman looks at a cow; the cow stops giving milk.
4. The salesman was physically out of shape, so he failed in his career.
5. France refused to boycott the Olympics, so the Russians held a special
summit meeting with the French.
TACTICS FOR SUPPORTING A CAUSAL

RELATIONSHIP
Mill's Four Methods
The English philosopher John Stuart Mill gave us a detailed explanation
of how to carry on a causal investigation. He was concerned with identifying potential causes and making the connection between cause and effect
as certain as possible. In the laboratory, once a potential cause-and-effect
178
relationship is identified, it can usually be tested and established with

certainty. That one thing causes another becomes a fact. However, in most
ordinary causal investigations, outside the controlled conditions of a laboratory, certainty is an unreachable goal. We settle for probability. That one
thing causes another becomes a matter of argument, not proof, because
most human actions cannot be repeated in a laboratory.
Nevertheless, in supporting a causal argument, we use versions of Mill's
basic tactics in two ways. First, they help us find or single out a dominant
cause; they are especially useful when we have a number of sufficient
causes to choose from and need something to convince us that a particular
one was working. Second, the same tactic that helped us select a dominant
cause can also be used to convince a reader. In other words, if one of Mill's
tactics convinced us, it will also convince our audience.
The Common-FactorMethod (Mill's Method of Agreement)

The common-factor method works only when the effect we are interested
in occurs more than once. People catch the same disease, nations invade
one another, and some people have difficulty waking up every Monday
morning. Investigators looking into the causes of any events like these first
assume that the cause(s) came before the effect in time. They look at the
events that came before the effects to see if they have anything in common.
Assuming agency, the simplest unit of cause, they reason that the common
factor is likely to be the cause.
Here is a fuller example of how the common-factor method works. A
literary historian interested in how some prolific novelists accomplished so
much looks for anything alike in their very different lives. She may find
that many of them (Charles Dickens, Anthony Trollope, George Eliot,
Edith Wharton, Henry James) set aside a time in the morning, even if only
a few hours, for uninterrupted writing. She can then reasonably infer that
this common factor, regular morning work habits, was the cause of their
productivity, rather than some other possible cause such as intermittent
inspiration. When she writes up her argument, she can assume that readers
will accept the agency linking regular work habits and great productivity.
A search for the cause of food poisoning is a frequently cited example
of the common-factor method. If six people come down with the symptoms of botulism, health officials will obtain a list of what the victims ate
in the past twenty-four hours and check for things in common. They will
eliminate the salad or coffee that all six had because they know that
Closhidium botulinum grows only in an anaerobic (airless) environment. But
when they find that all six ate the canned vichyssoise at the local diner,
they can be certain that they have found the cause. Health officials looking
for the source of botulism have an easy time because they know exactly
. 179
what they are looking for; botulism has only one necessary and sufficient
cause.
But in the famous case of the so-called legionnaire's disease that struck
182 conventioners at a Philadelphia hotel in 1976, some time went by
before a possible cause was located. Investigators did not know at first
what they were looking for; they had not identified the agency. They tried
every possible common factor-food, water, air, location of rooms, even
whether all the victims passed through the same lobby.
Notice the difference between the food poisoning example and the one
about the novelists. The health officials' knowledge of the cause of botulism simplified the investigation and led to a certain conclusion, but in the
example about the novelists, the conclusion is only probable. Though we
know the necessary cause of botulism, no one has yet identified a necessary
and sufficient cause of productivity (one in whose presence productivity
must follow).
Remember that frequently your purpose in causal argument is to persuade your audience that a dominant cause indeed produced the effect. If
you discovered this cause by the common-factor method, you can simply
relate that process. Write it out in your argument; it may read like a
detective story. The health officials will explain in the local press how they
tracked down botulism to the vichyssoise. The literary historian will describe the working habits of each individual novelist and point out the
common pattern and the common result: how Trollope had a servant wake
him each morning with a cup of coffee at 5:00 A.M.; how Dickens went
every morning to a little house built for him to write in, complete with a
mirror to make faces in; how Edith Wharton wrote on a lapboard in bed.
Since such an argument is not scientific, the literary historian may have to
refute or concede other possible sufficient causes of prolific writing such
as vital energy or a need for money. The need for money could be refuted
by pointing out that it is not really a common factor, since at least one of
the novelists (Edith Wharton) had plenty of money, or the literary historian may concede that all the novelists had extraordinary vital energy, and
that is exactly what caused them to get up early and write every morning.
Thus, vital energy is a cause of regular work habits and a remote cause of
prolific output. All the novelists may have had brown hair too, but it is
not easy to imagine any agency between hair color and creativity.
EXERCISE
This exercise will show you how the common-factor method is both a tool
of causal investigation and a convincing technique in causal argument.
180
Here are some situations that lend themselves to the common-factor

method of analysis; after you have identified a dominant cause, write up
your argument by explaining how you did it.
Begin by identifying a group of at least five incidents or five people who
have some effect or condition in common: people who scored the highest
on a recent test; people who have chosen the same major, especially an
unusual one; people with unusual diets, hobbies, exercise routines; the
accidents that have occurred in one location; the best-selling hardbacks or
paperbacks or record albums for a single year.
Now look for a common factor shared by all the members of the group.
You might even come up with several factors, but some will have to be
rejected as implausible or insignificant. Don't be dismayed if all the members of your set do not share one common factor. You may simply be
dealing with an effect that has several sufficient causes. But at least you
will have identified one of them.
The Single-DifferenceMefhod (Mill's Method of Difference)

The single-difference method works only when there are at least two similar
situations, one leading to an effect and the other not. One seed grows,
another doesn't; one president's term is peaceful, another's is full of conflict; one sponge cake rises, another flops. You look for the possible cause
that was missing in one case and present in the other-the single difference. You assume that if everything else is substantially alike in both cases,
the single difference must bu: the cause-the sandy soil that one seed was
planted in, the international inflation that faced one president, the thundering herd that passed through the kitchen of the flopped cake.
Here is how the single-difference method works in an extended example. Two students in a course have a B+ average on the exams, but one
gets an A and the other a B as a final grade. Both students attended class
regularly, both sat in the second row, both were attentive in class; but the
one who got the A participated in class discussion, while the other did not.
If you know that this participation was the single difference between their
performances, you can reasonably conclude that it caused the difference
between their grades.
If you argue for a cause discovered by the single-difference method, you
must first persuade your audience that the two cases being considered are
substantially alike. Convincing an audience of such a comparison is sometimes difficult, for rarely in human events are two situations exactly alike.
You can, however, establish likeness in two ways: List all the important
things the two cases have in common, or show how any differences other
than the one you are interested in are insignificant or trivial. For instance,
. 181
if the student who got the B missed one more class than the one who got
the A, you may have to argue that such a difference was insignificant in
determining their grades.
If you are arguing a case like the one above, you must be especially
careful not to overlook any other possibly significant difference. If someone else were to point one out, your argument would be weakened. So you
have to anticipate any plausible rival difference and refute it. For example,
someone may point out that the student who got the A was a man and the
one who got the B a woman. That may be a significant difference. How
would you argue that it wasn't?
EXERCISE
This time you will have to find pairs of similar situations, one in which
an effect occurs and the other in which it doesn't: two tests in the same
subject, one that you do well on, the other less well; two dates with the
same person, one a success, the other a failure; two attempts to do something (pole-vault, get elected), one successful, one a failure; two very
similar international crises, one resolved peacefully, the other not; two lab
experiments, one that yields a result, the other not.
Try to find the single difference between these two situations. That
single difference may be the cause of the effect occurring in one case and
not in the other. Remember that when you nominate a single difference
as a cause, other factors must be alike in both cases. You have to convince
your reader of similarities or argue that apparent dissimilarities are unimportant.
The Method of Varying Causes and Effects (Mill3 Method of

Concornitant Variation)
The concomitant-variation method can be used only when an effect persists and varies. Sunspots come and go, SAT scores rise and decline, the
cost of living rises, the stock market lurches. Faced with fluctuations and
trends, you look among the possible causes to find at least one that persists
and varies in a similar way. In doing so, you assume that the correlation
between the cause you are supporting and the effect is evidence of their
connection. But you can make this assumption only when the agency is
plausible.
Both cause and effect may increase together, decrease together, or one
182
. H O W DID IT GET T H A T WAY?
may increase while the other decreases. They may even jolt up and down
together in absolute harmony. Sunspots may increase when electromagnetic activity on the sun increases; SAT scores may decline while the
number of students enrolled in advanced high-school English and math
courses declines; and the standard of living may rise when family size
decreases. In each of these cases, an a,sumption about agency is as necessary to your argument as the rising and falling patterns of cause and effect.
That is, your audience must see the plausible connection between the two.
It is easy, for example, to see the agency between declining SAT scores and
declining enrollments in advanced math and English. If students are not
learning skills, they will not do well on tests of verbal and mathematical
ability.
Let us look at a more complicated case where concomitant variation is
the key to causal argument. The library in Centreville keeps careful records
of the number of books taken out per year. The librarians noticed that over
a period of ten years, from 1950 to 1960, the number of books taken out
decreased from 30,000 in 1950 to 15,000 in 1960, despite a population
increase of 10 percent in the town. Casting around for an explanation, the
librarians discovered that the number of TV sets in the community increased dramatically during this ten-year span. The agency between TV
sets in the home and library books still in the library is obvious. And in
this case, the relationship between cause and effect is inverse: As one went
up, the other went down.
Between 1974 and 1976 the librarians were pleased to notice a sudden
upsurge in the number of books taken out. This time there was no single
obvious explanation, so they noted a number of trends that might have
contributed to the increase: the sudden increase in the price of oil, a big
rise in community enrollment in night-school courses, a steep rise in the
rate of inflation, an increase in the number of fast-food chains, and an
increase in the number of senior citizens living in the area. None of these
is an obvious cause of increased book circulation without further explanation.
Let us compare how difficult it would be to convince an audience of
causes for the decline or the increase in library use in these two instances.
Persuading an audience that it was an increase in the number of TV sets
that led to a decrease in the number of library books taken out would
not be very difficult. You could simply present statistics of increase and
decrease; as we said, the agency between them is obvious: Most
people cannot read and watch TV at the same time. You could, of course,
make your argument more interesting by giving a detailed, specific example of one family whose evening reading had been replaced by TV
watching.
183
But making a causal argument out of the relationship between book

circulation and any of the other simultaneous trends between 1974 and
1976 might be more difficult. There is no obvious connection between
an increase in the price of oil and an increase in book circulation. If
you suspect they are causally related and want to convince yourself and
others, you must construct a chain of causes to connect them. Your
argument might go something like this: An increase in the price of oil
leads to an increase in the price of gasoline. An increase in the price of
gasoline leads to fewer nonessential car trips, so people find themselves
at home with more time on their hands. To fill that time, they may
turn to their local library instead of simply turning on the television
set.
Arguing a causal connection on the basis of concomitant variation can
depend in part on forestalling some obvious objections. First, even though
trends vary in the same way, they may be unrelated. For example, the
increase in the number of fast-food chains and the increased book circulation probably have nothing to do with one another.
Second, both the supposed cause-and-effect trends may really be the
effects of yet another cause. For example, increased book circulation and
an increased number of senior citizens may both be the result of an overall
increase in the population. Third, the trends may be the cause and effect
of each other-remember reciprocal causality. For example, a rise in continuing-education enrollment could lead to more books being taken out,
which in turn could lead to more continuing-education enrollment. It takes
skillful arguing to maneuver around all these pitfalls and place causes in
their proper relation to one another.
EXERCISE
Think of some trend that has been either increasing or decreasing over a
period of time: vandalism in your town; drug use in your former high
school; enrollments in certain kinds of courses (for example, business,
classical languages, forestry); summer unemployment among young people in your area; increase in the number of special-interest magazines;
female crime in the United States.
Among plausible causes of these trends, try to find one that has increased or decreased in a similar way. Remember that in your argument
you will probably have to support the existence of both trends with the
184
techniques learned in Part I. And be careful that the two trends you line
up are not better seen as effects of yet another trend or cause.
The Elimination Method (Mill3 Method of Residues)

Like Mill's three other methods, the process of elimination is both a
method of arguing about causes and a method of writing about causes.
As a method of investigation, scientists use elimination in controlled experiments, doctors use it in diagnosis, Sherlock Holmes used it to find
criminals, and common sense makes it available to everyone. If your car
stalls in traffic, you systematically eliminate all possible causes, beginning with the most likely, until you find the cause-gas, water, battery,
oil. Obviously, the elimination method works only when an effect can be
produced by several possible sufficient causes. We assume that since only
one cause was needed to bring the effect about, only one cause operated.
(This assumption is a potential weak spot in this method.) In the process-of-elimination method, then, we argue for one dominant cause, not
by proving it happened, but by proving that the other possibilities did
not.
The success of convincing an audience by this method in argument
depends on how complete the initial set of possible causes is and how
validly the other members of this set are eliminated. For example, in the
story "The Adventure of the Speckled Band," Sherlock Holmes considered
all the possible means of entering and leaving a bedroom. The room was
sparsely furnished, so no one could hide in it. The door was locked from
the inside, so no one could either enter it from the outside or, once inside,
leave it without a sign. The window was shuttered from within, and no
one could open it from without. After Holmes eliminated these obvious
possibilities, he concluded that the only remaining way of getting into the
room was through the very small ventilator above the bed, "So small that
a rat could hardly pass through." Thus, by the process of elimination,
Holmes concluded that he was not dealing with a human intruder. (If you
want to know whodunit, read the story.)
Such Holmesian thoroughness is possible only when the set of causes
is limited, as it is by the physical facts of a room. More often, we use the
process-of-elimination method loosely. That is, we argue by simply eliminating the most obvious possible causes-other than the one we are interested in, of course. Setting up and then eliminating the entire set of possible
causes is not always necessary. Since we are not often involved in matters
as crucial as identifying murderers, it is usually enough to dispose of only
the most likely of other possibilities, especially those that the audience of
the argument might anticipate.
For example, you may want to persuade your audience that media
185
favoritism was the cause of one candidate's victory in a Senate race. One
tactic you could use to support this case would be to eliminate obvious
rival causes. One such rival cause might be the candidate's support for a
tax cut, a position that certainly attracts votes. But if the other candidate
supported the same tax cut, you could certainly eliminate this cause of
your candidate's victory. You could go on to eliminate other possible
causes such as the candidate's attractive spouse, family's wealth, and dedicated staff. You may decide not to bother with some of them, but only if
you think them insignificant and only if your audience is likely to ignore
them too. You must always remember that you risk easy refutation if you
leave out anything likely to occur to your audience.
EXERCISE
List at least four possible causes of the following effects. Try to show that
three of them could not have operated.
1. The increase of
in the 1980s.
foreign tourism in the United States and the Soviet Union
Deterioration of the coral reefs off the Florida keys.

3. One student's dropping out of high school.
4. The decline of polygamy among Mormons.
5. The decline of travel abroad from 1985 to 1986.
2.
Mill's Methods and Agency

Mill's methods will convince an audience whenever agency can be assumed. But what do you do when agency cannot be assumed? Say you
have some evidence that two things are causally connected. Your evidence
comes from one of Mill's methods in the first place-you have identified
a single difference, a common factor, a concomitant variation, or have
eliminated everything else. But there is no obvious connection, no agency
between the cause you have identified and the effect.
If you are left with a gap between cause and effect, you have to do some
imaginative model building to close it. Two rules govern this imaginative
model building: (1)The agency you invent must be in line with accepted
causal laws; that means no magic. (2) You should apply the centuries-old
wisdom of Occam's razor, or the Principle of Parsimony. Occam's razor
advises looking for the simplest agency that explains the effect, rather than
186
an elaborate Rube Goldberg contraption with fourteen interlocking steps

between cause and effect.
OTHER RHETORICALLY EFFECTIVE METHODS

Mill's methods are rhetorically effective but complex. In newspaper
editorials, magazine articles, speeches at meetings, and so on, we often use
simpler, almost shorthand methods to support causality. Instead of telling
a long story, we may combine several of the techniques listed below to
indicate a likely causal connection. These methods may not be as rigorous
as Mill's, but they can be convincing when agency is assumable. They are
better as methods of presenting causes than of finding them in the first place.
Chain of Causes
Often you may want to link two events whose connection as cause and
effect will not be obvious to your audience. The cause might be incongruous or remote. For example, it has been argued that the deforestation of
England in the sixteenth century led to the industrial revolution, that not
learning to crawl leads to reading problems, and that the rising divorce rate
leads to a boom in the kitchen appliance industry. We are likely to respond
to any of these statements with "Huh?" When an audience is likely to find
a causal connection implausible, a chain argument is often called for.
A chain-of-causes argument is a persuasive way to support an improbable or remote causal link. Such a chain divides the big leap between cause
and effect into a series of little steps, making it easier for you and your
audience to share assumptions about agency.
Here is an example of a chain-of-causes argument. NASA announced

that sunspots caused Skylab to fall in its orbit. That sounds magical, but
NASA persuaded the public by establishing a chain of cause-and-effect
relationships between sunspots and Skylab's fall. Its argument went like
this: Sunspots are a sign of magnetic storms on the sun. These storms hurl
a stream of charged particles, called the solar wind, into space. The solar
wind heats the thin gases in the earth's outer atmosphere, which then
expand into Skylab's orbit. The expanded gases increase the drag on the
craft, which then slows down and falls, as Skylab did.
Magnetic storms on the sun

Solar wind
Heats gases in
\ earth's outer
atmosphere
. 187
Skylab falls
Outer atmosphere
+expands into
b:;3:"
Skylab's orbit
This chain of causes looks very persuasive. But, like any chain, it is only
as strong as its weakest link. It works by appealing to an audience's assumptions about what are believable causal links.
EXERCISE
To get some practice in describing a chain of causes, try linking these
remote causes with their effects by describing the intermediate steps between them. Notice that there may be several ways to get from one to the
other.
1. A childhood interest
+ a career choice.
misunderstanding ,
a broken friendship.
3. A political crisis + a war.
4. Shutdown of a major industry ,
the decline of a town.
5. Clear cutting of a forest + increase of deer population.
2. A
Time Precedence
We are often warned not to assume that one thing causes another just
because it came before the other in time; to do so, we are told, is to commit
what is called the post hor fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hor, after this, therefore
because of this). The man who plugged in his electric broiler a split second
before the East Coast blackout in 1965 may have felt a surge of fear and
thought, "What did I do?" But although his act immediately preceded the
effect, he was not responsible. Nevertheless, although there are many such
examples of exact time sequence without causal connection, causes do
precede or accompany their effects in time. Can you think of an exception?
This notion of cause first and then effect is our most primitive causal
assumption. (Here is our one-way-street model again.) Lightning strikes
the transformer and then the electricity goes out; the voyages of discovery
took place in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and then the colonization of the New World began; the spoon falls in the garbage disposal unit
and then the unit breaks. We usually assume this order of cause first and
188
then effect without bothering to point it out in our argument. But mentioning a time sequence does tend to support a causal relationship between
two events when the agency is already plausible.
For example, on October 19, 1987, stock prices declined sharply. An
analyst explaining the causes of the drop might point out that just the
week before, two economists from two major banks forecast a credit
crunch. Making a causal connection between the experts' pronouncements
and the decline in stock prices simply required presenting the two events
in sequence. The writer could assume that an educated audience would
understand the impact of experts' predictions on the world of finance.
Thus, time precedence by itself is enough support only when we can
assume agency very comfortably.
EXERCISE
Which of the following sets of events paired in time order seem plausible
because agency can be assumed?
1. The secretary of the treasury predicts recession.
The stock market declines.

2. The president announces he will seek reelection.
The stock market declines.

3. A student takes a study skills course
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The student's grades improve.

A student changes roommates.
The student's grades improve.
A roller-skating rink opens.
The orthopedist gets more patients.
A roller-skating rink opens.
A bowling alley closes.
The prime interest rate goes up
The sale of houses declines.
The prime interest rate goes up.
The export of steel declines.
Singling Out Examples

Causal propositions can be either generalizations-"TV
violence causes
violent behavior," or specific cases-"Because
the defendant watched
Miami Vice, he committed this crime." As you learned in the section on
. 189
arguments about the nature of things, generalizations can be supported by

examples. Thus, any causal statement that stands for a number of instances
can be supported by describing one or more of those instances.
Here is an example of using examples. A social scientist may want to
persuade us about the effectiveness of halfway houses for parolees as a
cause of their successful reintegration into society. The argument will be
persuasive if it describes some detailed case histories of former prisoners
successfully rehabilitated in halfway houses. Of course, the case histories
presented, no matter how inspiring and persuasive, may have little to do
with the overall statistics of success versus failure. After all, we may be
given as examples the only three successes the system produced and the
eighty-seven failures may be ignored. Thus, this technique can falsify the
facts of the case.
However, when this method is used legitimately, the examples are
backed up either with overall statistics or, in the absence of exact evidence,
with an assessment (as accurate as possible) of the relationship of the
examples to the whole. The social scientist, arguing for a very specific
thesis such as "The Barrabas Halfway House rehabilitates its residents"
would have access to the kind of exact evidence we mean; he or she should
have at least counted all the Barrabas alumni who stayed out of jail and
all those who went back.
But what if exact evidence is impossible to attain? Suppose, for example, you are arguing for the proposition "Running frequently produces a
sense of well-being." Your causal argument is ultimately based on the
common factor method and time precedence: Running frequently is accompanied by a sensation of euphoria. Since you could never know how
every runner feels, you have not worded your proposition to suggest all.
But even though you cannot know all, you can know some. You might
create a sample and compile statistics about it ("Of the ten runners I talked
to, nine claimed to be suffused with well-being after running"). Or, you
can simply give your few examples (yourself, your friend, and your
brother) and leave it at that, letting the reader assume they are typical.
Your reader could skeptically respond, "So that's ten. What about the
other 25 million?" Examples of causal relationship also require the assumption of agency. What is it about running that actually produces
euphoria?
EXERCISE
Here are a few common causal generalizations. Find two or more examples
to support them.
190
1. Absence
makes the heart grow fonder.

Lying hurts the liar.
3. High expectations create success.
4. Friendly parents increase the popularity of their children.
5 . Idleness produces mischief.
2.
Analogy
You use analogy when you establish one cause-and-effect relationship by
comparing it with another. This other relationship, which is held up as a
model, should be familiar and acceptable to your audience. If it is not, you
must back up and clarify it.
Like the use of examples, analogy is a common technique in supporting
a causal argument. FDA scientists, for example, used mice to test the
cancer-causing effects of saccharin. When they found that large doses of
saccharin produced cancer in mice, they announced that saccharin is dangerous to humans. The persuasive power of their argument depended on
the acceptability of the analogy between human and rodent physiology,
diet, and metabolism. Most people find such animal-human analogies
convincing; many theories about human disease, learning, and behavior
are based on animal experiments.
Analogies can be used to argue for the causes of events in the past and
to predict events in the future. When we argue for the causes of a completed event, we can compare that event with another whose causes are
better known. For example, the causes of the Athenians' difficulties in the
Peloponnesian War can be compared with the causes of America's problems with guerrilla warfare in Vietnam. (We take u p predictions in Chapter
11.)
EXERCISE
Below are some possible causal analogies. Choose one and make an extended argument for it, or argue for a similar analogy of your own.
1. Ecologists know
system can lead
that even a small disturbance in a delicately balanced ecoto its destruction. Think of a neighborhood as a kind of
ecosystem, and construct a causal argument based on that analogy.
2. Historians have argued that many wars (World War I and the Vietnam War
especially) are the result of diplomatic blunders and an overriding will to go
to war. Could you argue that similar causes could produce a marriage?
. 191
3. The well-known Peter Principle says that a worker will be promoted until
he or she reaches his or her level of incompetence, and there he or she will
stick. Can you use this principle in any other domain, such as the growth of
institutions or students' choices of careers?
4. The second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy, states that alt systems tend to disorder unless energy is invested to maintain their stability.
Use this law analogically to argue for a tendency you have observed in your
own life or in the life of any group from community to na:ion.
5. A classic law of physics states that for every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction. Could this law be used analogically to explain phases in
history, the 1950s and the 1960s, the 1960s and the 1970s, the 1970s and the
1980~7
HOW CAUSAL ARGUMENTS CAN GO WRONG:

COMMON DIFFICULTIES IN CAUSAL ARGUMENT
The most important characteristic of causal argument is plausible connection between cause and effect, that is, believable agency. Without it, no
causal model building or application of Mill's or any other tactics will make
a convincing causal argument. An argument that claimed, for example, that
closing the university library at 10:00 P.M. caused depression among students could not get by without explaining agency, what comes between
such an implausibly paired cause and effect. To refute such an argument
you would ask, in effect, "What on earth is the link between closing
libraries and student depression?"
Even when agency is plausible, a causal argument may require further
support to show that a particular cause operated. It is one thing to be
convinced that a cause could have operated, another to be convinced that
it did. A critical audience needs to have cause and effect linked by the
tactics described in this chapter. One of the most common faults in a causal
argument is to underestimate the audience's need for this additional support. Though everyone knows cyanide can kill, that known agency is not
enough to convince a jury that it did kill the body in question.
We have already pointed out the pitfalls of the various tactics used to
establish or emphasize a particular causal connection. The common-factor
method works only when there are no unrefutable rival factors; the singledifference method requires convincing an audience that any but the singled-out dissimilarity is insignificant; the problem with concomitant
variation is that the supposed cause and effect may both be the effects of
still another cause; and elimination arguments depend on the plausible
completeness of the original set of possible causes. The other tactics, which
are less rigorous to begin with, have their dangers as well: Time order may
192
= H O W DID IT GET THAT WAY?
be coincidence, not cause; analogies may be more apparent than real;

examples may be atypical; and chains may break at the weakest link.
We have said that causal arguments aim to depict the interaction of
causes or to emphasize the power of a particular cause. The causal model
of an argument may be inadequate for either of these purposes. A causal
explanation can be too full, going farther and farther back, finding influences on causes and multiplying conditions, until the coherence of the
whole is lost in a dissolving view. Or the single cause featured in an
argument may be unable to bear the importance placed on it. Another way
of oversimplifying is to ignore reciprocity, to miss a mental U-turn and fail
to see the effects operating on their causes.
EXERCISES
ldentify the techniques of causal investigation or argument used in the
following examples.
Pistachio I Scream!
"My car won't start when I buy pistachio."
The manager of a Texas automobile dealership thought the woman who
confronted him with this bizarre statement must be crazy. It seems that on hot
summer days she would drive to a certain shop for ice cream to take home. It
never failed, she said: the car would always start when she bought chocolate,
vanilla or strawberry-but when she bought pistachio, she got stranded.
The manager had to see this to believe it. He tried a chocolate trip, and the
car worked fine. Vanilla or strawberry-no problem. Then came the trip for
pistachio and, sure enough, the engine refused to start.
It was an engineering troubleshooter whose insight solved the problem. He
observed that chocolate, vanilla and strawberry were pre-packaged flavors, sold
right out of the freezer. But take-home orders of pistachio were hand-packed
at the shop. The time needed to have the pistachio packed was just enough for
the car to develop vapor lock in the summertime Texas heat. The woman wasn't
crazy after all-her car wouldn P start when she bought pistachio.
-Bulletin of the Greater New York
Automobile Dealers Assn., quoted in
News and Views
SA T SCORES-HO W TO STOP THE DROP

Jane Whifbread
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores-a critical factor for college admissions-have slipped in the past 15 years. The decline, seen as a sign that Ameri-
THE TACTICS OF CAUSAL. ARGUMENT
193
can education is on the down-grade too, has been blamed on everything from
marijuana use to divorce. Now the National Association of Secondary School
Principals may have a simpler answer: too many eiertior courses and too few required
courses in English and math-the skills SAT'S are designed to test.
While SAT scores in most of the country's 20,000 high schools have dropped
by more than 50 points in English and about 30 in math since 1963, in about
100 schools, scores have remained level or even gone up. Concluding that these
schools might have something to teach the rest, the Principals' Association
looked at 34 of them and compared them with similar schools whose scores had
dropped the most. What stood out was the total dedication of the successful
schools to giving the kids the best possible preparation for college:
College-preparatory students must take at least two years of math and four
years of English-literature, language (grammar, spelling, punctuation, vocabulary) and writing.
Teachers stress good writing (clear, precise expression) in all courses.
Qualified college counselors help students choose appropriate colleges and
follow through so they take the courses required for admission before they take
nonqualifying electives.
Students, particularly in math and English, are grouped by ability. Thus, the
faster may go farther, and the others can learn more effectively, free from
pressure to rush.
Teachers in success schools had an average of five more years' experience than
those in low-scoring schools.
Faculty efforts have the support of the entire school administration. Excellence in scholarship is valued as highly as skill in sports. "Our student body
is as proud of the winning math team as they are of our champion athletic
groups," says A. R. Cramer, principal of Newtown High School in Connecticut.
SAMPLE
ANAI.YSIS
The effect that is the subject of causal investigation in this short article is
not an event but a trend, the infamous fifteen-year decline in SAT scores.
The opening paragraph makes passing reference to the large social conditions (such as marijuana use and the increasing divorce rate) that have been
cited as causes of the drop. But among all the factors influencing such a
complex phenomenon, this article focuses on a more immediate cause: the
education that high-school students receive prior to taking the test. Such
a cause can be changed, while the larger social conditions of the past fifteen
years cannot. Not surprisingly, the people responsible for high-school
education, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, sponsored the investigation.
Behind the investigation is the assumption that learning is a cause of
test performance; this assumption is so obvious it need not be mentioned.
Since education should make a difference, the principals want to know
194
H O W DID IT GET THAT WAY?
what kind of education does. The investigative technique employed is first

of all the single-difference method. Among the nation's 20,000 high
schools is a small set of 100 high schools in which scores have not declined.
Thirty-four of these are compared with "similar schools" in which scores
have declined. That simple word similar represents a crucial step in the
method. The schools compared must be similar (even paired) in location,
size, affluence of the school district, and so on. In other words, any other
differences that might be causes of test performance must be cancelled out
so that differences in education alone can emerge. The investigation is
designed to yield the kind of cause the investigators are interested in, but
this does not mean that the cause is any less real.
Once the single-difference method has produced the comparable
schools, the common-factor method takes over. What do the successful
schools have in common that could produce the kind of education that
yields better test scores? Six common attributes were discovered: four
years of required English and two of math, emphasis on clear writing in
all courses, qualified college counselors, ability grouping, greater experience of the staffs, and administrative support.
Whether these common attributes can be seen as causes depends on
whether we can construct plausible agencies between them and the effects.
It is fairly easy to see how four years of solid instruction in English
vocabulary, grammar, and writing would have a strong effect on results in
the verbal component of the SAT, but what about the greater experience
of the teaching staffs? Could their greater experience mean something
about different teaching techniques? We might need a chain to connect this
particular discovery of the common-factor method to its effect. And the
last common factor, the administrative support and equal emphasis on
academic as well as sports excellence, looks as though it may reflect a
difference in the local community's values, values that in themselves may
be a quite important cause of good SAT performance.
In New England, Canada and western Europe the summer of 1816 was
extraordinarily cold. A meteorological record for New Haven that had been kept
by the presidents of Yale College since 1779 records June, 1816, as the coldest
June in that city, with a mean temperature that would ordinarily be expected
for a point some 200 miles north of the city of Quebec. . . . In New England
the loss of most of the staple crop of Indian corn and the great reduction of the
hay crop caused so much hardship on isolated subsistence farms that the year
became enshrined in folklore as "Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death." The
calamity of 1816 is an interesting case history of the far-reaching and subtle
effects a catastrophe can have on human affairs.
The chain of events began in 1815 with an immense volcanic eruption in the
Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), when Mount Tambora on the island of
Sumbawa threw an immense amount of fine dust into the atmosphere. . . .
THE TACTICS O F CAUSAL ARGUMENT
. 195
This eruption, which was considerably larger than the better-known one of
Krakatoa in 1883, reduced the height of Mount Tambora by some 4,200 feet and
ejected some 25 cubic miles of debris. Ash was encountered by ships at sea as
large islands of floating pumice as much as four years after the event. Climatologists rank the eruption as the greatest producer of atmospheric dust between
1600 and the present. The dust circled the earth in the high stratosphere for
several years, reflecting sunlight back into space and thereby reducing the
amount of it reaching the ground.
The idea that dust in the upper air can result in lower temperatures at ground
level is quite old. Benjamin Franklin invoked it to explain the cold winter of
1783-84. Today the idea can be confirmed more conclusively through long
records of temperature from many parts of the world, which can be compared
with the fairly complete record of the volcanic eruptions that have been observed during the past two centuries.
As the dust in the upper atmosphere circled the earth after the eruption of
Tambora, it gradually shadowed the higher latitudes. The first two months of
1816 were not exceptionally cold in New England, but by May observers had
begun to comment on the lateness of the spring. June began auspiciously, and
crops that had survived the unwonted frosts of mid-May started to progress.
The first of three unseasonable cold waves moved eastward into New England
early on June 6 . The cold and wind lasted until June 11, leaving from three to
six inches of snow on the ground in northern New England. A second killing
frost struck the same areas on July 9 and a third and fourth on August 21 and
30, just as the harvest of twice-ravaged crops was about to begin. The repeated
summer frosts destroyed all but the hardiest grains and vegetables.
-Henry and Elizabeth Stommel, "The
Year Without Summer," Sc~entlfi
Amtmran
During a period of severe depression several years ago I began to study

jujitsu. My purpose was to feel safer on the streets of New York City; everyone
I knew seemed to be getting mugged. The immediate results, however, were
totally unexpected. Within two weeks I found that the training had begun to
have a dramatic effect on my life.
My posture and my mood changed markedly as passivity and depression
gave way to energy and euphoria. In the next several months I was able to seize
the initiative in several important areas of my life. I applied for a grant to write
a book, entered and won a competition for a writing award, and began the steps
out of a difficult relationship. Although 1 was also in psychotherapy at the time,
I believe that the jujitsu and the physical fitness that came with it had a
significant effect.
Many other women have had similar experiences. One friend of mine took
up running and discovered a new sense of calm and ease. "I feel freer, as though
I've recovered a lost part of me," she says. "I have a sense of wholeness-body
and mind come together in a way they don't otherwise. Although the running,
changing and showering take up an hour a day, I feel as if I have more time,
not less. Whereas I used to push things out of my life to save energy, I now feel
196
able to investigate some of the things I always wanted to do but thought I didn't
have time for."
Margo Lawrence, a TV producer, took up ballet three years ago and now goes
to class four or five times a week. Although she has changed physically, it's the
psychological change that's dramatic. Her image of herself is so improved that
she recently auditioned to appear on camera. "I was tubby as a teenager and as
a result I've always had bad feelings about my body," she says. "I can't tell you
how exhilarating it is to stand up and let myself show."
-Susan Edmiston, "The Surprising
Rewards of Strenuous Exercise,"
Woman's Day
THE BUBONIC PLAGUE

Colin McEnedy
Finally, after innumerable cycles of onslaught and retreat, the [bubonic]
plague disappeared from Europe. London's last experience with the disease, the
Great Plague, began in 1665 and ended in spectacular fashion with the Great
Fire of 1666. At that time it was natural for Londoners to believe they owed their
deliverance to the purifying conflagration. Later it was suggested Londoners
owed their resistance to the plague to the reconstruction that followed the fire
and the fact that the rebuilt city boasted brick houses and wide, rubbish-free
streets in place of the higgledy-piggledy structures and malodorous alleys of
medieval times.
This explanation is attractive but does not hold up under scrutiny. One
reason is that the fire destroyed only the central part of London, the area least
affected by any of the outbreaks of plague earlier in the century, leaving untouched the overcrowded suburbs that had provided the disease with its main
lodging in previous times. A second reason is that other cities in Europe, such
as Paris and Amsterdam, became plague-free during the same period-a phenomenon that could not be linked to the Great Fire of London.
A somewhat more convincing (but still flawed) theory suggests that the
disappearance of the plague coincided with a slow rise in prevailing standards
of health and hygiene. Although hygiene cannot be eliminated as a factor, it
does not explain why subsequent outbreaks followed the standard course, complete with high rates of mortality, but were farther and farther away from the
center of Europe each time they appeared. It was almost as if Europe were
developing some form of resistance to the plague that kept the infection from
propagating in the usual way. In the north the path of retreat was to the east;
in the Mediterranean it was to the south. The later the epidemic, the less it
seemed to be capable of spreading. This, moreover, was at a time when, according to every available index, traffic by land and by sea was increasing.
When the role of rats was finally established late in the 19th century, it was
suggested that the subsidence of the plague could be explained by changes in
the population dynamics of the black rat, Rattus rattus. During the 18th century
THE TACTICS c j T CAUSAL ARGUMENT = 197
it had been observed that the black rat, the historic carrier, had been largely
displaced by a new species, the brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), which would have
been a much poorer vector of the plague: the brown rat is as susceptible to the
plague bacillus as the black rat but does not normally live in close proximity
to humans. Brown rats typically live in dark cellars or sewers, whereas black rats
overrun the upper rooms and rafters of a house. Because the oriental rat flea has
a maximum jump of 90 millimeters (a little more than 3.5 inches), the difference
in preferred habitats may have been enough to isolate humans from plagueinfested fleas.
The brown-rat theory seems plausible but does not fit the geography: the
brown rat spread across Europe in the 18th century from east to west, whereas
the plague retreated from west to east. The brown rat was in Moscow long
before the city experienced a particularly severe epidemic of the plague in the
1770's; it did not reach England until 1727, more than 60 years after that
country's last bout of the plague.
The late Andrew B. Appleby of San Diego State University suggested an
alternative theory, namely that a certain percentage of black rats became resistant to the plague over the course of the 17th century and that the resistant
animals would have increased in number, spreading across Europe during the
next 100 years. Although these rats might still be infected by the plague bacillus,
they would not die from it and therefore could support a large population of
fleas, rendering it unnecessary for the fleas to seek other hosts. This theory,
however, does not conform to what is known about resistance to plague in
animal populations. As Paul Slack of the University of Oxford has pointed out,
rat populations often develop resistance when exposed to a pathogenic bacterium or virus, but such resistance is short-lived and is therefore unlikely to have
been responsible for broad-based immunity to the plague.
A more plausible theory suggests that a new species of plague bacillus,
Yersinia pesfis, may have evolved that was less virulent than the previous strain.
Being less virulent, it might have acted as a vaccine, conferring on infected
animals and humans a relative immunity to more virulent strains of the bacterium.
The bacteriological theory is acceptable on several grounds. First, it conforms
to the dictum, proposed by the American pathologist Theobold Smith, that
"pathological manifestations are only incidents in a developing parasitism," so
that in the long run milder forms of disease tend to displace more virulent ones.
Second, it explains why the decline of the plague is associated with a failure to
spread beyond local outbreaks: a disease cannot travel far when the number of
people susceptible to it is low. Third, it is supported by the existence of a close
relative of the plague bacillus, Yersinia pseudotuberculosis, which does not induce
visible illness in rats but does confer on them a high degree of immunity to the
plague.
Did Y pseudotuberculosis, or a relative with similar properties, gradually spread
through the rodent population of early modern Europe, making it impossible for
Y: pestis to gain a foothold there? Although no direct evidence exists to support
that hypothesis, it seems more reasonable than any other. . . .
198
FOR YOU TO WRITE

We cannot ask you to discover new cause-and-effect relationships in
chemistry, astronomy, or physics. Instead of research, then, do some reading in the extensive and accessible literature of science, so that you can
synthesize already existing information and interpretation in any of the
following areas or on similar topics. You should frame all your arguments
for an educated but inexpert audience.
1. Trace the causes and/or the immediate and long-term effects of a natural
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
disaster, such as the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, the drought in the United
States in the summer of 1988, or any of the scourges of flood, earthquake,
or pestilence.
Write an argument singling out the predominant cause for the extinction
of a species, such as the passenger pigeon, the dodo, the great auk, or the
Irish elk. You may even wish to take on the great question of paleontology:
Why did dinosaurs disappear from the earth with such apparent suddenness in the late Cretaceous period?
What is the latest causal explanation of a disease or phenomenon that has
stumped medical investigators? Examples: sudden infant death, senility,
multiple sclerosis, Legionnaire's disease, lupus, or Kawasaki's disease.
Trace the causes and/or effects of a form of pollution or a particular incident
of pollution. Examples: acid rain, ozone depletion, automobile exhaust,
sewage in lakes and rivers, any particular oil spill, Love Canal, a train
derailment leading to the release of toxic chemicals.
Try your hand at cosmological causality. Why should there be volcanic
activity on one of Jupiter's moons and not the others? What are the causes
and effects of sunspots? What is the origin of the moon/earth system?
What technological advances have made today's computer revolution possible, and/or how are its effects taking shape? Or what have been the effects
of computerization on any particular business or industry?
Why have we not been able to progress in some area of science or technology: exploring and using the resources of the ocean, interfering with the
weather, harnessing a particular form of energy?
Argue for the importance of a particular animal or plant in an ecological
nexus: bears, squirrels, ragweed, aphids, purple martins, dung beetles, bats,
or the bacterium E. coli.
Identify the most important effect of an advance in agricultural technology:
the McCormick reaper, a particular pesticide, drip irrigation, a breeding
technique.
What was required to create a new development in transportation? Examples: high-speed trains, the monorail, trailer trucks, automatic transmissions
on automobiles.
199
Searching for causes in t h e social sciences rarely means finding a cause

t h a t is b o t h necessary a n d sufficient. Instead, social scientists usually discover influences, contributing factors, a n d responsible agents. W h a t can
current research offer as answers t o t h e following causal questions?
1. Identify a large-scale social trend, like the increase in divorce rate, decline
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
in birth rate, increase in cocaine abuse, or the increase in teenage pregnancy.

Such trends are the products of many causes, but try singling out one you
find significant and relating others to it. Remember that you may have to
document the existence of the trend.
What, would you argue, is the dominant cause of job satisfaction in any
particular field?
What psychological factors influence success in a sport? Do different sports
attract different personalities, and if so, why?
Using the common-factor method, can you argue for a dominant influence
in alcoholism, drug addiction, agoraphobia, or stuttering?
Can you make a causal connection between any method of instruction and
success at learning? Examples: drill in math instruction, grammar in composition instruction, learning a foreign language at the elementary level with later
language learning.
What does current research say are the causes of sleep disturbances or
dreams?
Why do people fall in love, or do they?
History
1. The cataclysms of history-wars, revolutions, plagues, and other upheavals-prompt the question "Why?" Against the background of conditions and
factors, argue for one overriding cause behind an event such as the SpanishAmerican War, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the battle of Gettysburg, the
1967 Arab-Israeli War, the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979, the
Iran-Iraq War.
2. The perception of unexplained difference also leads historians into causal
investigation. Why, for instance, did the South have slaves and not the
North? Why has Japan been influenced by the West more than China? Why
did France have a revolution in the eighteenth century and not England?
Why are there more labor unions in the North thall in the South?
3. Economic historians analyze changes, fluctuations, and cycles, often finding
evidence of reciprocal causality. What brought about the rise and fall of strip
development in the suburbs of U.S. cities? Can you argue for any predominating cause behind any identifiable recession or boom? What has caused
any particular change in banking or credit policy?
4. The biggest questions in history concern the growth and decay, the rise and
fall of nations, peoples, religions, even whole civilizations. Any full answer
to such questions would require a book, but a shorter argument can place
200
deserved emphasis on one major cause. Consider, for example, the decline
of the Minoan civilization of Crete, the Etruscans of Italy, the Mayans of
Mexico, the Shakers or other such utopian communities in the United States,
or the flourishing of the Shiite Moslems, the Hasidic Jews, or the economically powerful Japanese.
5. Ideologies and isms of all kinds are moving forces in history. Their effects
tend to scatter, but in a chain argument you can follow an idea into action.
Argue for at least one important effect caused by Malthusian ideas on population, Russian nihilism in the nineteenth century, Saint Simonian or Fabian
socialism, populism, or civil rights in the United States.
6 . History is made not only by people and ideas, but also by technological
innovation. Again looking to effects, what is or has been the impact of the
astrolabe, the Jacquard loom, the cotton gin, nylon, cable television or the
VCR, the photo-duplicating machine? In military history what have been
the results of inventions like radar, the tank, the machine gun, the missile?
In the study of languages, literature, art, and philosophy we engage in

a kind of open-ended causal inquiry that relies heavily on time sequence,
analogy, and assumptions about intention. You can fill in the following
causal propositions with specific content drawn from works and artists you
are familiar with.
1. Trace the origins of a movement in any of the arts. Examples: English Ro-
2.
3.
4.
5.
manticism, punk rock, art deco, abstract expressionism, Pre-Raphaelite

painting, the Victorian Gothic revival, the blues.
Argue For the influence of one artist on another. 1s pointing out similarities
enough evidence of influence, or do you need to establish agency? Examples:
English novelist Anthony Trollope on Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, Paul
McCartney on Billy Joel, Frank Sinatra on Barry Manilow, Fred Astaire on
Michael Jackson, Jack Benny on Johnny Carson, Beethoven on Brahms, Ravi
Shankar on the Beatles, Japanese watercolorists on James McNeill Whistler.
Why did a particular popular art Form or style flourish and decline? Examples: the mini-skirt, the blond furniture of the 1950s, disco, movie musicals,
pop art, front porches.
Explore the motivation of a major character in a novel or short story or drama
you are familiar with. Can you argue for one predominant cause behind that
character's behavior?
Choose a book you think important and argue that it has affected the way
some people think and act. Such a book can be a precipitating or remote cause
of other events. Examples: Unsafe at A n y Speed by Ralph Nader, The Feminine
Mystique by Betty Friedan, Walden I1 by B. F. Skinner, Silent Spring by Rachel
Carson, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy,
The Interpretation of Dreams by Sigmund Freud, Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, Free to Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman, In Search ofExcellenre by Tom
Peters, and Cultural Literacy by E. D. Hirsch.
Precision and Prediction
We spent a great deal of time looking at the exact wording of claims to see
what that could tell us about supporting them. Now that we have surveyed
causes-what kinds there are, what tactics of support we can use, and how
important agency is in causal argument-we are ready to examine the
wording of causal propositions. They come in five possible forms. The way
the proposition is worded suggests how to support it. Reviewing these
forms will help you make a proper adjustment between the wording of
your thesis and its supporting arguments.
CLAIMS WITH CAUSAL VERBS

Some claims have verbs that clearly indicate causality and often reveal
something about the degree and kind of the causality. Some verbs indicate
immediate or precipitating cause, others remote; still others show that the
cause under consideration may be only one of many, and a weak one at
that. The verb may also suggest the nature of the causal connection-that
is, whether one thing creates, destroys, or alters another.
Here are some of the more common verbs that turn their subjects into
causes.
202
1.These verbs suggest weak causality such as that produced by a condition, a remote cause, or one cause among many.
add to
affect
contribute
decrease
elicit/enhance
evoke
be associated with
lead to
make a difference
modify
go along with
have a hand in
have an effect on
improve
increase
influence
reduce
stimulate
take away from
2. These verbs suggest stronger causality such as a precipitating, sufficient, or necessary cause.
bring about
cause
compel
create
decide
destroy
determine
effect
eliminate
exhaust
force
impel
initiate
make
necessitate
produce
result in
set off
trigger
Notice in the following examples how a difference in a causal verb calls

for quite a different argument.
1. Deciding not to go to college affects your future.
2. Deciding not to go to college determines your future.
Arguing for the first statement is not very difficult. Your argument would
simply point out that one thing influences another; you need to show only
a modest change to make your case, since the decision not to go to college
may be one of several factors affecting one's future. But arguing for the
second statement requires strong evidence as well as the refutation of other
possibilities; you would have to show how a college education is the
necessary and sufficient cause of the pattern of one's future.
EXERCISE
How would the choice of causal verb in the following examples affect an
argument?
PRECISION AND PREDICTION
203
1. The noise level in a classroom (influences, determines) how much a child

learns.
2 . Participation in organized athletics (enhances, creates) ambition and competitiveness.
3. Taking cram courses (guarantees, leads to, can help students achieve) higher
SAT scores.
4. The amount of sleep you have been getting (affects, decides) your ability to
fight off viral infections.

5. Moving to a new area (stimulates, produces) anxiety.
THE CAUSAL ASSERTION AS A CLAIM ABOUT THE

NATURE OF THINGS
Many statements that would have to be supported by causal arguments
look like generalizations about the nature of things. In fact, we can get into
a muddle about why we bother to distinguish them. After all, "the reasons" for putting any subject into a class are in a loose sense "the causes"
behind making the claim in the first place. For instance, if we say that
"Albert Einstein was a genius," his being a genius "causes" us to make the
assertion. But we would do nothing with Mill's methods to support that
claim; we would use definition and example. How are we defining genius?
What attributes did Einstein exhibit that fit that definition? We could go
off into these separate questions. But we will ignore the quibble and
distinguish between the two kinds of claims on the basis of how they are
supported.
Only a few claims about the nature of things truly require causal argument, and here are two signs by which we know them.
An Adjective in the Predicate That Describes an Effect

This effect can be general:
1. Current auto emission standards are ineffective.
2 . Living together is disadvantageous.
3. A college education is beneficial.
Or specific:
1. Drinking gin is unhealfhy.
2. Eating pinto beans in moderation is healfhy.

3. Reading Russian novels is depressing.
4. Keeping bees is uplifling.
204
Let us work through an example in detail to show how it requires causal

argument and what the complications are.
If you assert that something is "beneficial," you claim that it causes
good. One of our examples claims that good things follow from a college
education. (See Part 111 on evaluation.) To support that statement you have
to name those good things and show convincingly how a college education
caused them. One good effect or benefit might be more money, and a large
part of your argument might be a demonstration that college graduates do
indeed earn more money. The tactic of supporting the causal connection
between college education and income could be concomitant variation:
The more years of education the higher the income. The agency connecting
those two-that jobs requiring intellectual preparation pay well-is acceptable enough to most audiences without further support. Another good
effect or benefit of a college education might be job satisfaction. First, you
could define job satisfaction in some measurable way and then identify
two groups, one that has it and one that does not. Then you might identify
the single difference between the two groups as a college education,
thereby convincing your readers of a causal connection.
The Predicate Names a Class Defined by Its Effects

1. Prostitution is a victimless crime.
2. Perfume is a pollutant.
3. Sunshine is a carcinogen.
4. The MIRV is a deterrent.
These are ordinary-looking claims, but when you start defining their
predicates you will find yourself talking about causes and effects. A "victimless crime" is one that causes no harm, a pollutant causes pollution, a
carcinogen causes cancer, and a deterrent prevents an effect. Therefore, to
place a subject in one of these classes is to claim that it has certain effects.
Perfume a pollutant? Well, a pollutant can smell good even while it contaminates the air.
Do not worry about how to classify claims like these. You do have to
define the predicate, but then the predicate is defined by its effects, so you
are back with causal argument.
SIGN ARGUMENTS
We have just shown how some causal claims look like claims about the
nature of things. But sometimes a straightforward claim about the exis-
PRECISION AND PREDICTION = 205
tence of something can lead the arguer to claims about causality, arguing
backward from a cause or effect to existence. The ancient rhetoricians
called this kind of reasoning "sign arguments." A sign argument offers as
evidence things that the audience either already believes or is persuaded
into believing are natural accompaniments of the real subject of an argument. If these exist, then the things they are signs of must exist also. We
are probably most familiar with sign arguments in the natural world: the
increased red shift in the spectrum of distant stars is taken as a sign that
the universe is expanding; the presence of certain antibodies in the blood
is taken as a sign that a person has been exposed to a particular infection;
the discovery of a crafted tool in a certain stratigraphic layer is taken as
a sign of human presence at a certain point in the past. Indeed sign arguments may be so convincing to certain audiences that they are accepted as
establishing facts rather than probabilities. Succeeding generations, however, have a way of undoing the sign arguments that seemed "scientifically" factual to audiences in the past. We no longer believe, for example,
that the size of one's cranium is an invariable sign of the degree of the
cranium owner's intelligence.
In the grayer area of the social sciences and humanities, sign arguments
support probabilities. The prosecution in a murder trial, for example, may
wish to characterize the accused as in a state of anger toward the victim
in order to support a further claim that the murder was premeditated. The
prosecution will undoubtedly resort to a sign argument, detailing acts and
words on the part of the defendant that most audiences, and especially the
jury, would take as signs of anger: The defendant swore at the victim in
the presence of witnesses, defaced the victim's car, tore up the victim's
picture.
The relation between a sign and the thing it indicates determines how
the claim will be supported. It makes all the difference in the world if a
sign is merely associated with whatever is the real goal of an argument, or
if it is causally related to it. In order to understand this difference, let's look
at a deliberately extreme example. Ancient astrologers consulted the heavens for "signs" of events on earth. If they saw something unexpected in
the night sky, they were persuaded that something unusual had happened
on earth-perhaps the birth of a new leader. The sign in the heavens was
not the cause of the event on earth; if anything, the astrologers may have
believed that both were caused by some alt:.nrior intention on the part of
a divine being.
These days we believe less in associated signs and far more in connected
causes. The migration of birds is no longer a sign of the changing seasons
but a result, a consequence of shorter days and the effects of less light on
the biochemically mediated behavioral "clocks" in birds. Indeed much
modern research is aimed at replacing mere associations between signs and
phenomena with thoroughly explicated causal pathways. The term sign is
still very much with us; semioticians/semanticists use it in the old sense
206
to indicate the largely arbitrary connection between words and meanings.

Perhaps only our modern soothsayers, the economists, still resort to sign
arguments based on association when they talk of "leading indicators" for
this and that phenomenon. Given the complexity and high variability of
economic events, economists may not be able to trace the precise causal
connections between stock market cycles and deficit spending, or consumer confidence and the money supply, but they may nevertheless have
evidence of a past association between the two and so reason from the
existence of one to the existence of the other.
Because of the preference of most modern audiences for causal relationships, arguments that attempt to substantiate the existence of something
from its signs may have to turn to causal relationships for support. If the
causal relationship is one an audience will readily believe, an arguer need
only convince an audience that the sign exists to convince them that the
cause exists. If you want to argue that deer you have never seen live in the
woods behind your house, the presence of undisputed deer tracks should
be convincing. Deer tracks are caused by deer. (Why doesn't this tactic
work for Bigfoot?) If, however, your audience does not accept the causal
relationship between the sign and the phenomenon whose existence you
are arguing for, you will have to shift to causal argument. Why should an
audience believe that a reduced white cell count is a sign of marijuana
abuse if they have never heard of a causal connection between the two?
Chapters 9 and 10 explain the special requirements of causal argument.
Are sign arguments a wholly different kind of support for claims about
the nature of things? From one point of view they are not. Let's return to
the example of the prosecuting attorney who wants to convince a jury that
a defendant was angry by bringing up evidence of the defendant's swearing and violence. From one point of view we can say that the defendant's
anger caused the demonstrable acts that we have direct evidence of. From
another point of view we can look at this situation as one that calls for
argument from definition. Anger is defined as uncontrolled acts of swearing
and aggression. It does not cause those phenomena, it is those phenomena.
Which tactic is stronger?
EXERCISE
What combination of causal and definition arguments would you use to
support the following claims?
1. Eating fatty foods is (or is not) unhealthy.
2 . Travel is not always broadening.
3. The free agent draft has been harmful to baseball
207
are beneficial.
5 . Many science-fiction stories and movies have stimulated real invention.
6 . Rewards are an incentive to achievement.
4. Bats
IF-THEN CAUSAL STATEMENTS

So far, we have seen causal statements lurking in generalizations about the
nature of things or declaring themselves openly in propositions with causal
verbs. They can also split themselves in two, and instead of taking the form
"X causes Y," they take the form "If X then Y."
1. If you want to go to medical school, you must have high grades.
2. If the Japanese had not bombed Pearl Harbor, the United States
3.
4.
5.
6.
would have remained neutral in World War 11.

If John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln, he must have been insane.
If you touch those wires, you will electrocute yourself.
If you study with a virtuoso, your chances of becoming a great
musician yourself are improved.
If the president fired the Secretary of Commerce, he must have deserved firing.
All these statements can be reworded into direct causal propositions. Sentence 2, for example, becomes "The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor
caused the United States to enter World War 11."
One more qualification is necessary. Some if-then statements are not
cause followed by effect but antecedent followed by consequent. An antecedent
is not exactly a cause; it is simply something that comes before something
else. Consider this example: "If it is day now, then it will be night soon."
Day is an antecedent of night, as night is of day, but not a cause. So an
if-then statement does not tell you for sure that you have a claim about
causality. For an antecedent to be a cause, an agency must connect it to the
consequent or effect. Because there is certainly no agency between day and
cause/
night, we definitely have a case of antecedent/consequent-not
effect. You must examine if-then statements carefully to see which kind
you have.
EXERCISE
Which of the following if-then statements are causal, and which are only
antecedent/consequent?
208
1. If you pass this course, you can take an elective in English.

2. If you do not study tonight, you will not pass the test.
3. If winter comes, can spring be far behind?
4. If you learn another language, you learn another way of thinking.

5. If you turn right at the fork in the road, you will come to a sign that says
"Marengo 5 miles."
6 . If the onion snow has fallen, then it is time to plant peas.
FACT-PLUS-CAUSE STATEMENTS
We have said that we do not argue about easily verified statements; we call
them facts. But if we can take a fact and add a reason or explanation for
it, then we may have an arguable statement. The entire statement is a
causal claim naming an event or effect and its cause. For example, it is a
fact that dinosaurs are extinct, but scientists do not really know why, so
they argue with each other about the causes. For example, consider the
following:
Dinosaurs are extinct because a supernova exploded 60 million years ago.

fact
cause
Here is an arguable statement that a scientist must do two things to

support: First, show the likelihood of a supernova explosion 60 million
years ago, and second, show how a supernova explosion would cause
dinosaurs to die. The same steps that are needed to support any causal
claim may be needed to support a fact-plus-cause statement:
1. You may need to convince your audience that the cause really exists
or existed.
2. You may need to convince your audience that the cause could have
brought about the effect. In other words, if you cannot assume
agency, you must work at establishing it.
EXERCISE
How would you argue for the following fact-plus-cause statements for an
audience of fellow students? Would you need to establish the existence of
the cause or could you assume it? Would you need to establish agency?
. 209
Registration for the draft was reinstituted in 1980 because the all-volunteer
army was judged inept.
2 . Tornados are frequent in the Midwest because there are no mountains.
3. SAT scores have fallen because a larger proportion of high-school students
are taking the tests.
4 . The Hall of Fame pitcher Sandy Koufax retired at the height of his career
because his arm was about to be permanently damaged.
5. Picasso did not leave a will because he didn't care about his family.
1.
PREDICTIONS
What do fortune cookies, Jeane Dixon, and prestigious think tanks like the
Rand Corporation have in common? They are all in the business of predicting the future, an occupation that has inspired the highest wisdom and
basest hokum. We all want to know what will happen tomorrow. Some
fortunetellers try to appease our curiosity by sharing their divinations and
hunches with us. Soothsayers read death in chicken entrails, gypsies see
"tall dark strangers" in palms and tea leaves, and psychics just "know"
where next year's hurricane will hit and what movie star will get divorced.
Unlike these leaps in the dark, rational predictions can be supported
only by careful argument. To convince a reader of our vision of the future
requires all the skills of causal argument. Causal analogy is particularly
important in prediction arguments, for we believe that if A produced B in
the past, and we find ourselves with A now, we can predict that B will
follow. Or, if we think we have the first link of a well-established causal
chain in hand, we can construct a chain into the future, a series of inevitable small steps leading to a coming result. Or we can try to construct a
causal law governing the event we are predicting, a law that has worked
in the past and we are convinced will hold in the future.
What Do Predictions Look Like?

Our most common verbs for the future are will and is going to.
1. Great Britain will be economically healthy in the 1990s.
2. The divorce rate will decline for the rest of the century.
3. Rudyard Kipling's reputation as a novelist wi:' revive.

4. College enrollments will decline in the mid-nineties.
5. The United States will have an energy crisis by the end of the cen-
tury.
210
You must
meanings,
main uses
should be
be careful, however, because the simple verb will has many

not all of which concern predictions. We can distinguish three
of the future tense (and especially of the word will) that you
aware of.
In tentions
If you make a statement about what you intend to do in the future, you
are really talking about the present. Even though you use the verb will and
what you intend may take place in the future, the intention to do it exists
in the present.
1. I will (plan to/intend to) begin my vacation Friday.
2. I will (plan to/intend to) marry George next year after we both
graduate.
Such statements of personal intention are not subjects for argument. You
cannot and need not support a personal intention with any kind of evidence. If you intend it, you intend it. But a claim about another person's
intentions may be arguable. Since such a claim concerns a state of affairs
(a quality in another person), it is supported like any claim about the
nature of things. For example, you would argue for a statement like "The
State Department intends to improve relations with Cuba" by saying what
it means to intend to improve relations with Cuba, and then finding examples or signs of this "intent" in recent activities.
Generalizations Using the Future Tense

We often use the future tense to talk about things that happen all the time.
If we feel confident enough to phrase a generalization in the future tense
as a kind of causal law, we must believe that the causes bringing the event
about always hold. We may not bother to mention the causes; we may not
know them. We simply assert that the effect always occurs:
1. Radioactive isotopes will decay.
2. Iron will melt at 3,000" F.
3. Flowers will bloom in the spring.

4. Broken bones will knit.
Using the future tense here is not necessary; it is simply a convenient way
of expressing our certainty that these things always happen-past, present,
and future. They are facts.
But any time collective or individual humanity is involved, we are less
211
certain that things will always turn out the same way. There are always
exceptions to the laws describing human behavior. According to the Peter
Principle, for instance, "Any executive or administrator will be promoted
to his level of incompetence." That is not just a prediction; it describes the
way things usually work. But they do not always work that way. Certainly
a few executives have shown competence at every rung of the corporate
ladder.
Folk wisdom gives us many such generalizations about how people
behave:
1. Social climbers will forget old friends.
2. Politicians will do anything to get elected.
3. Absolute power will corrupt absolutely.
4. Boys will be boys.
Since these statements are supposed to hold for all time, the future tense
is not essential, though it is used for emphasis. If you find yourself in the
position of having to argue for one of these, you can treat it either as a
definition or as a causal argument. You can argue that forgetting old friends
is part of the very nature of social climbing or talk about how social
climbing causes people to forget old friends.
True Predictions
A true prediction talks about an event or process that is completely in the
future:
1. It will probably rain tomorrow.
2. In the next decade, colleges will alter their recruiting policies.
3. The Soviet Union will eventually go to war with China.

4. The Mets could win the pennant this year.
Or about one that exists now and extends into the future:
1. Baseball will continue to be the most popular sport in America.
2. College enrollments are likely to decline even more in the next few
years.
3. Funding for the space program will increase in the twenty-first century.
A true prediction is neither a statement of personal intention nor a statement about a causal law phrased in the future tense. The causes that bring
212
about the prediction may exist in the past or the present, but some or all
of the process or the event itself is yet to be.
How to Argue for a Prediction

The only way to argue for something in the future is with a causal argument. You cannot convince anyone but the credulous to follow your leap
into the dark because you have a hunch or an inspiration. If you want to
predict the future, you have to use the facts and assumptions of the
present. Your laser into the future is made with the materials of now. If
you predict rain tomorrow, it is because a front is approaching naw. If you
are convinced that college enrollments will continue to decline, it is because the birth rate has already declined over a number of years. If you
think funding for the space program will increase in the next century, it
is because of causes, even causes of causes, that exist now.
When you argue for a prediction, you try to convince your reader that
all the causes needed to bring about the event are in place or will fall into
place. You build a causal model, using any of the sets of causes we described in Chapter 9 . You might bring together necessary and sufficient
causes, show how a remote cause constitutes the first link in an inevitable
chain, show how the conditions are ripe for a precipitating cause that is
likely to occur, or show how the removal of a blocking cause will bring
about some inevitable effect.
Here is how you might argue for the modest prediction "The Mets could
win the pennant this year." You identify the set of causes sufficient to
produce a pennant: good pitching, steady fielding, improved batting averages, and so on. You show that the Mets have these attributes; this can
engage you in some difficult evaluation arguments. But once you have
polished them off, if nothing else intervenes, like injury to the star pitcher,
you have made a good case for the future success of the Mets.
Predictions can also be supported by analogies. The predicted event can
be compared with a completed event in the past. Once again, the causes
of the completed event, the model, should be familiar and acceptable. Once
the model has been described (or simply referred to), you point out the
existence of similar causes in the present. You claim that these similar
causes will lead to similar effects in the future.
For example, a historian who predicts that the Sqviet Union will go to
war with China may reason from analogy. He may compare the present
situation between the Soviet Union and China with the past situation
between Russia and Japan that led to war at the beginning of the twentieth
century. For an audience of historians, this will be a familiar example. But
again, the argument is only as good as the analogy, which sometimes must
itself be supported.
PRECISION A N D PREDICTION
. 213
FOR YOU TO ANAL YZE

W h a t combinations of tactics are used i n t h e following prediction arguments-analogies, causal laws, chains i n t o t h e future? H o w convincing are
these predictions?
FOR HEALTH AND FOR WEALTH

Kenneth R. Sheefs with Robert E Black
Alchemists they aren't. But a $5-billion-a-year investment in research and
development by drug companies in America is generating a wave of breakthroughs-from
tension relievers and cancer therapies to baldness cures and
heart-attack medications-and
positioning pharmaceuticals to become the
glamour industry of the 1990s.
The wonder medicines working their way through the research pipeline and
emerging from the labs will allow the pharmaceutical industry to keep its golden
touch well into the next century if companies can circumvent several obstacles
along the way-the exploding cost of developing new compounds, a hostile
regulatory environment and growing government pressure to hold down health
costs by squeezing profit margins on drugs.
Despite those hurdles, the drug industry is pushing ahead with a financial
record that few businesses can match: A 10 percent annual rate of growth in
sales and a 186 percent gain in after-tax profits-from $14 billion to $36 billion-since 1977. During that time, the after-tax profits of all American industry
rose 65 percent. "More new products are coming out than at any time in the
past 15 years," says Robert Hodgson, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Company.
"Most are superior to anything on the market."
Permanent customers. Demographics also point to a bright pharmaceutical
future. The 65-and-over population is swelling, and persons in that age group
use three times as many prescription drugs as those under 40. Many of the
diseases under attack by new drugs-such as high blood pressure and diabetes-are chronic, and patients will take the medications for the rest of their lives
For young and old alike, drugs rather than surgery are considered the more
promising medical treatment for a growing assortment of ailments.
Not since the 1950s, a decade that brought forth vaccines against polio as
well as powerful new antibiotics, have so many exciting new drugs begun
appearing at neighborhood drugstores. Merck's Mevacor, which lowers cholesterol, is now available by prescription, and some analysts believe its sales may
eventually top $1billion a year. Genentech recently began marketing Activase
(t-PA), a biotech drug that reduces coronary risk by dissolving blood clots that
damage heart muscle. Eli Lilly got a go-ahead from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January to sell Prozac for the treatment of depression. This
year's projected sales: $50 million. That sum will multiply if tests show that the
drug can also be prescribed against obesity.
214
Even more promising remedies should emerge in the next decade. Cancer
researchers are focusing on proteins that stimulate the body's immune system.
A case in point: Interleukin-2, which did well in short-term tests on patients
with renal-cell cancer or malignant melanoma but still has serious side effects
that must be overcome. Hundreds of scientists are also involved in a quest for
medicines to curb AIDS. Nearly a score of antiviral drugs for treating the killer
disease are under development.
Improved blood-pressure drugs may result from research on renin, a protein
suspected of contributing to hypertension in 58 million Americans. Scientists at
several companies believe they've found a drug that suppresses the body's
production of renin. By the year 2000, some researchers believe, the need for
many coronary-bypass operations will be eliminated in favor of treatments with
drugs that dissolve clots and plaque in the bloodstream.
Strokes and baldness. With the graying of America well under way, nearly
every pharmaceutical company is pressing hard for products that will help the
aged. Several companies are developing treatments for prostate trouble, common among older men. Upjohn has Rogaine, a hair-growing minoxidil preparation that is being sold in Canada and is nearing FDA approval. This summer,
the company also begins human tests on lazaroid compounds designed to attack
"free radical" molecules that damage cells in the wake of strokes and injuries
to the head or spinal cord. Some lazaroid compounds may also help treat Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases and other central-nervous-system disorders.
Few of these developments would be possible without dramatic changes in
the way research is done. For nearly a century, pharmaceutical researchers relied
on the "screening" method, in which promising natural and chemical compounds were run through test after test to determine their benefits and drawbacks. Over the years, almost every known chemical, bacterium, fungus and
countless combinations of them were tested. Now, that method is giving way
to "rational drug design," a technique in which researchers first identify a target
and then design a treatment. "Instead of searching for the key to unlock the
disease, we first design the lock and then the key that will fit it," says Stanley
Crooke, president of SmithKline's research center at Upper Merion, I'a.
Rational discovery methods have been greatly accelerated by the emergence
of biotechnology, in which genetic material is manipulated to fit the needs of
researchers. Once almost the exclusive tool of start-up firms such as Genentech,
biotech expertise now is a necessity in nearly every major pharmaceutical house.
Some companies build their own teams. Some buy out smaller companies. In
the last two years, Bristol-Myers bought Genetic Systems for $300 million and
Eli Lilly got Hybritech for $350 million.
Thanks to biotechnology, labs are creating compounds of remarkable complexity. Genentech started it all a decade ago by cloning the human insulin gene
to create the first genetically engineered drug (now marketed by Eli Lilly as
Humulin). Then came the discovery of interferons and lymphokines, proteins
thought capable of boosting the body's immune system. Most biotech drugs
proved disappointing in tests, but alpha interferon now is sold as a tre~tment
for hairy-cell leukemia, a rare form of cancer.
Biotechnology also played a major role in Upjohn's research on renin. Because renin is found only in tiny quantities in human blood, researchers could
215
not get enough for testing. So Upjohn cloned the human renin enzyme and then
inserted the gene into hamster ovary cells growing in test tubes. Those cells now
produce unlimited amounts of human renin for research.
Patent woes. The new generation of pharmaceutical compounds is arriving
at a propitious time. Until recently, Wall Street analysts complained that drug
companies were showing signs of hardening of the arteries. Almost all of the
top 100 prescription drugs on the current market will lose their patent protection
by the mid-1990s and become vulnerable to the swelling market for low-cost
generic medicines. And many "me too" drugs with similar properties are competing head to head. For example, Merck and ICI Pharmaceuticals recently
introduced hypertension drugs to rival Squibb's breakthrough medicine, Capoten SmithKline's revolutionary ulcer-treating Tagamet was replaced as the
No. 1 prescription medicine last year by Glaxo's Zantac Two other companies
have similar ulcer drugs.
Though drug sales look healthy in annual reports, the reality is that most of
the gains stem from repeated price hikes. Drug charges have climbed an average
of 9.4 percent a year in the past 10 years, a period in which yearly inflation has
averaged only 6.5 percent. The industry is quick and vigorous in defense of its
profits, which can exceed 60 percent on some formulas. O n average, new patentprotected drugs cost more than $125 million to develop, compared with $50
million a decade ago. Only 1 in 4,000 compounds tested in the labs survives a
rigorous series of regulatory hurdles that can eat up more than half of the 1 7
years it gets in patent protection. The cost and time of testing show signs of
increasing as the new drugs and the diseases they treat become more complex.
Although the FDA has managed to reduce the time needed to approve new
drugs used to treat AIDS and other life-threatening diseases, pharmaceutical
executives still gripe that the process takes too long. "The agency is too busy
with AIDS and politics to approve new drugs," asserts analyst Neil Sweig, who
follows the industry for Prudential-Bache.
Even after winning FDA approval, there are no guarantees that a drug will
thrive in the marketplace. Valium was one of the most widely prescribed drugs
in the world until it proved addictive. The FDA has ordered Hoffmann-La
Roche to place the picture of a deformed infant on the label of its new acne drug,
Accutane, as a warning that it can cause birth defects if used by pregnant
women Congress is investigating the approval and sale of Versed, a Hoffmann-La Roche anesthetic associated with three dozen deaths in the past two
years.
The industry's ability to pass costs on to consumers is running into heavy
opposition. Many health-insurance plans are rejecting higher prescription
charges, and some lawmakers even hint of price controls in the decade ahead-a
move that would sharply curb profits.
Another possible headache is the catastrophic-health-care bill now about to
smerge from Congress. While the bill will make drugs more affordable for
millions of elderly Americans, it also is likely to generate closer federal scrutiny
of prices. European nations already limit drug charges, and Japan has cut its
prices 40 percent since 1982. If the bill becomes law, "the cloud of potential
federal drug-price regulation will hang on the horizon, a prospect that is not
eagerly anticipated by the brand-name pharmaceutical industry," says Ira Loss,
216
an expert with Washington Analysis Corporation, an economic consulting company in the nation's capital.
Drug firms recently got a whiff of what may be ahead when federal health
officials notified hospitals that the government for the time being would refuse
to pay the $2,200-per-dose cost of Genentech's t-PA. The government argues
that t-PA has not yet proved significantly better than older but cheaper anticlot
therapies, such as streptokinase.
The generic challenge. Congress's bill also is expected to mandate the use
of generic drugs whenever they're available. That would give a big boost to the
small companies that live off the discoveries of major pharmaceutical houses.
Generics now hold 35 percent of the prescription market, compared with 7
percent in 1980. By the early 1990s, William Haddad, chairman of the Generic
Pharmaceutical Industry Association, expects generics to command 50 percent
of the market. Many name-brand firms have cut prices to meet the generic
threat. SmithKline now offers discounts to hospitals that buy large volumes of
patent drugs. Several companies have promised not to raise prices to customers
who sign contracts for big orders.
Although U.S. companies are world leaders in research and sales, they operate in a global arena where competition is formidable. Eleven of the top 20
companies in the world, led by Merck, are still American, but eight are European
and one is Japanese. American companies last year sold $3.3 billion worth of
drugs abroad, while foreign companies sold $2.8 billion worth in the U.S.
Pharmaceutical firms see their current push to develop revolutionary drugs
as the only way to outmaneuver the competition in the coming decade. Their
$5 billion yearly investment in research and development takes a variety of
forms. Many companies have formed research alliances, some with smaller
firms, some with companies abroad. Others have channeled millions of dollars
to university labs around the world in exchange for the marketing rights to new
discoveries.
The effort is paying off in the lab, but success is not guaranteed in the
marketplace. Products must earn their way by demonstrating a clear therapeutic
advantage over existing drugs or by reducing the need for other treatments, such
as surgery or long hospital stays. "The companies that develop these products
will be rewarded," says Bill Lalor, president of ICI Pharmaceuticals. "Those that
don't may not survive."
The survivors' rewards will be rich: The gratitude not only of medical patients who may live longer and better but also of shareholders happy to be a
part of a glamour business.
HYBRID AIRCRAFT
Thomas Kiely
A decade from now, air commuters may fly on a novel aircraft under development in both the United States and Europe. Called a tilt-rotor, it will have
movable rotor units on each wing tip. When the rotors tilt vertically, the craft
will fly sideways, hover, take off, or land like a helicopter. Tilting the rotors
horizontally will transform the craft into an airplane.
. 217
Proponents argue that this hybrid offers an affordable solution to air-traffic

congestion. LaGuardia, Kennedy, and Newark airports, serving New York City
and New Jersey, "are near saturation point right now," says A1 McDonough,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) program manager for East Coast heliports. "Probably 50 percent of the traffic at those airports are for passengers
going less than 350 miles."
One reason tilt-rotors may help alleviate the situation is that they can operate out of existing heliports or small regional airports, as well as specially
designed metropolitan or suburban "vertiports." They would be ideal for short
air trips and could even decrease the time passengers spend commuting to
airports.
Since tilt-rotors are part airplane, airlines and passengers may accept them
more readily than redesigned helicopters. Conventional helicopters are expensive to maintain, noisy, and too slow to satisfy the potential market for alternative air transportation. A 1987 study, conducted by NASA, the FAA, and the
Defense Department, argues that tilt-rotors would be far quieter than helicopters, perhaps even during liftoffs and landings. The study suggests that a commercial tilt-rotor could carry 75 commuters from downtown New York to
downtown Washington at a speed of 300 miles per hour. The entire trip would
take 40 minutes. And tilt-rotors would be far cheaper to maintain than helicopters, though more expensive than airplanes.
To take advantage of tilt-rotors, cities would construct downtown landing
sites, equipped with advanced landing systems. The study estimates that a
vertiport could cost between $11 million and $80 million, excluding the price
of the site. By comparison, new metropolitan airports cost between $4 billion
and $6 billion.
The FAA will have to certify the craft, a much longer-and therefore more
expensive-task than approving new versions of existing craft. The FAA must
also fashion discreet routes for tilt-rotor air traffic.
Which Market?
A commercial tilt-rotor is at least a decade away, but a military version already
exists. A V-22 Osprey, constructed by Boeing Helicopters and Bell Helicopters
Textron under contract to the U.S. Navy, will have its maiden flight this fall.
Following several years of tests, the first V-22s will go to the Marines, probably
in the early 1990s. The two companies reportedly invested $90 million in V-22
development between 1982 and May 1986, when they received a $1.81 billion
contract for six flyable and three non-flyable prototypes.
Eventually, the Marines hope to get 552 tilt-rotors to replace their amphibious-assault helicopters. The Air Force wants 55 for special operations; the Navy
will use 50 for air/sea rescue and is considering another 300 for anti-submarine
warfare. The Army originally wanted 231 Ospreys, but backed out at least until
1994 because of budget constraints.
The V-22's body is fabricated almost entirely of solid-laminate graphite
epoxy composites, and the rotors are advanced fiberglass structures. The craft
will come with sophisticated electronic flight controls, similar to those in the
new F-16 fighter. Equipped with a special fuel bladder, the V-22 could carry
three people 2,100 miles with one-fourth the noise of a helicopter.
218
Since Bell and Boeing would be obliged to swallow costly overruns on V-22
production, the firms will probably not work on a commercial tilt-rotor at least
until the mid-1990s. However, a consortium of aerospace and helicopter firms
from France, West Germany, Spain, Italy, and Britain is more committed to a
civilian project. They launched a tilt-rotor program last January and hope to sell
a craft by the late 1990s, the earliest a U.S. version could be available.
Jacques Andres, a spokesman for Aerospatiale, a French firm in the consortium, says European governments will commit 50 to 60 percent of the program's
funds to design and manufacture the tilt-rotor. Eurofar, as the venture is called,
has already spent $30 million on research. According to Andres, the European
tilt-rotor will look similar to the Osprey and also be made of composite materials. In the Eurofar version, only the rotors and not the entire rotor cell will tilt.
The consortium plans to build a 30-passenger vehicle, which Andres says will
serve a different market from the probably larger Bell and Boeing craft. "We see
a potential market for 1,000 machines," Andres estimates.
Eurofar worries proponents of a U.S. civilian craft, including Rep. Tom Lewis
(R-Fla.), a member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Tilt-rotors could be a billion-dollar industry by the year 2000, and James
Greene, an aide to Lewis, believes the first commercial product available will
take the lion's share of the market.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is bullish on the tilt-rotor. Advocates had worried
that since most major military programs are under review, the $23.7 billion price
tag for the craft would make it an obvious target for Pentagon belt tightening.
But the Defense Department's review staff decided in July to accelerate the
program, not to cut it. While the final decision rests with Congress and the
president, the Navy and the Marines look forward to an early delivery of V-22s.
FOR YOU TO WRITE

1. Choose a new product or technology and convince an audience of nonspe-
2.
3.
4.
5.
cialists that it will have important effects.

Write a letter to a parent or adviser predicting what you will be doing five
years from now, based on what you are doing now and the causal laws of
your own personality.
Choose a current domestic problem or crisis in foreign affairs about which
you either are or can become fairly knowledgeable. Predict its outcome in a
letter to the editor of a newspaper.
What will be the state of your favorite sport in five years? Do you think a
new sport will catch on or an old one become more popular? Address your
prediction to a fellow sports enthusiast.
Where do you think popular music is headed? What artists or types of music
do you think will go out of style or be revived? Imagine your prediction as
an article in Rolling Stone.
. 219
6 . The further into the future, the more difficult the prediction argument. Try
your hand at a long-range prediction about life in the twenty-first century

for an audience of people your own age.
7. Bankers, brokers, and marketing analysts are in the business of predicting.
If you have some knowledge of or interest in economics, you might try to
(a) recommend a long-term investment or savings plan, (b) predict the next
step in an economic cycle, or (c) foresee the possibilities for a new market
for a product.
Evaluation
Once you understand arguments about the nature of things and about
causes, you have grasped the fundamental methods of argument, tying
evidence to definition and linking two occurrences by agency. As you
know, each of these tactics is associated with its own kind of claim. Two
other kinds of claims also appear as the theses of arguments, the evaluation
and the proposal. Fortunately, these require no new methods of argument,
only a judicious combination of the types of argument already discussed.
In this section we take up evaluations, arguments for value judgments.
Whenever we attach a label like "good," "right," "beautiful," "bad,"
wrong," or "ugly," we are evaluating. If challenged, we ought to be able
to defend our evaluations, and to do so we have two tactics of support at
our disposal. First, we can measure the subject of our evaluation against
an ideal definition of what it ought to be, a standard of perfection for its
type. This tactic brings us back to the first type of argument. If you say,
for example, "I have a really great Honda," that claim translates flatly into
"My Honda is good." Everything you know about arguing for a claim
about the nature of things still works, even though you have placed a
value-judgment term in the predicate. You have to identify the subject for
your audience, if necessary, and your supporting evidence must be fairly
representative. And if you cannot count on your audience's immediate
understanding of the predicate term "good Honda" or "good motorcycle,"
you must define your standard of "goodness" in a car or motorcycle so the
subject term fits comfortably under it.
I/
224
IS IT G O O D OR BAD?
The definition of the predicate of an evaluation is called the criterion or

standard. The criteria behind an evaluation are as critical as the definition
of the predicate in an ordinary argument about the nature of things. If
these criteria are not acceptable to an audience, you may have to stop and
argue for them just as you would have to stop and argue for a definition.
The second tactic for supporting an evaluation is causal argument. Although evaluations resemble definitions in form, they frequently require
causal argument in support, for the criterion or ideal definition we measure
our subject against often includes good or bad consequences. If we say, for
instance, that "properly conducted drill is a good teaching method," our
definition of "good teaching method" must certainly include "has good
effects." How else can a teaching method be good unless students learn
from it? To show that drill satisfies this part of the criteria of good teaching
method we will have to link drill causally with certain results, perhaps by
the single-difference method, showing that students who have been drilled
in math facts fifteen minutes a day retain more information longer than
a similar group of students who have been taught the same material in a
less formalized manner. Our criteria for a good teaching method might also
include the absence of certain bad consequences as well as qualities like
"thoroughly tested," "traditional," or "approved by prominent educators."
EVALUATION IS NOT A MATTER OF TASTE

You may think that anyone who judges value and makes claims like "Mary
Cassatt was a wonderful painter" or "Government funding of science is
poor policy" expresses a purely personal opinion, a matter of taste that,
according to our discussion in Chapter 2, is not arguable. However, when
sharable criteria or standards can be found, evaluation becomes legitimate
argument. Of course, we often express value judgments without defending
them, venting pleasure, approval, irritation, or anger. But if we want to
move an audience to judge as we do, we must argue from external grounds
rather than our own emotions. We do this either by appealing to standards
we believe our audience holds with us, or by working to establish such
sharable standards.
SUPPORTING THE CRITERIA WITH A SPECIFIC

AUDIENCE IN MIND
You will not have to defend any criteria your audience are likely to share;
at most you may remind them of your shared criteria. If, for example, you
EVALUATION
225
claim your friend is a "good student," you would probably not have to
defend the criteria for a "good student." But what do you do if your
audience does not automatically accept your criteria of evaluation? To
begin with, ask yourself whether you can support them on any but personal grounds. A number of tactics are available for such support.
The first tactic for supporting criteria is an appeal to your audience's
values. If you can show that your standard of evaluation falls under one
of your audience's basic assumptions about what has value, then you have
supported your criteria, at least for that audience. For example, the novelist
John Gardner evaluated much modern fiction as "trivial and corrupt." He
claimed as his criterion for that evaluation that fiction should be a moral
art. How could he back up that criterion, one with which many modern
novelists and readers disagree? He could place that criterion under one of
our basic assumptions by appealing to the self-evident goodness of what
is moral. Moral is another word for choosing the good and repressing the
bad, and if we argue that trying to live according to this policy is admirable
in life, shouldn't it also be admirable in fiction?
Second, you can appeal to authority. What if your audience does not
automatically acknowledge the higher value you have appealed to, a value
you think self-evident? You can remind them that a famous thinker, a
religious leader, a great philosopher, the law, or the Constitution has
supported your view. John Gardner backed his criterion for fiction by an
appeal to the theory and practice of the great Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy.
Third, you can make an appeal to consequence, an appeal to the good
and bad effects of following your criterion. John Gardner, for example,
could have argued that morality is a good standard to judge fiction by
because art that follows a standard of morality makes people behave
better. If readers see characters in fiction engaged in serious moral conflict,
trying to make right choices, they will have good models to imitate in their
own lives.
Fourth, sometimes you can create a comparison to support a criterion.
A standard of morality in art might be defended by comparing it with a
standard of morality in life. You might support this criterion by arguing
that just as a parent should point out to a child the rightness or wrongness
of an action, so also should a novelist point out to readers the rightness
or wrongness of a character's action. Of course, such a comparison assumes
that your readers accept the basic comparability of a novelist and a parent.
But if they do, you have defended this criterion.
If you think about all these methods of supporting the criteria that
support the evaluation, you can see yourself getting into an infinite regression, going back and back, supporting one appeal with another and that
appeal with another, and so on. Suppose, for example, you make an appeal
to good consequences. How can a consequence be called "good" except by
some prior evaluation that has labeled it good? At some point, and that
226
. IS IT GOOD O R BAD?
point will depend on your audience, you simply call a halt. If you have
touched common ground with your readers' values, you should be all right.
You can see how criteria of evaluation work if you look at what you
evaluate. The following sections will help you think of subjects for evaluation and will suggest how to go about evaluating with ideal definitions and
causal arguments. The subjects of evaluation are divided into four categories-things, people, acts, and finally abstractions, a special category that
in some ways combines the other three.
EVALUATING THINGS
Things have material existence, and anything you can trip over can certainly be evaluated. Although things have no upper and lower size limits,
for convenience we have divided them into the natural and the constructed.
Natural Things
It may seem futile and arrogant to evaluate the givens of the universe, but
we do evaluate natural things both for their consequences and their
beauty. Our notion of the consequences of natural things depends on our
point of view. A child's book says, "Ladybugs are good insects." They are
the gardener's friends because they eat the plant-destroying aphids. Actually, ladybugs simply behave like ladybugs, but what they do happens to
have good consequences for people. If aphids could write, ladybugs would
be bad insects. Similarly, almost no one has a good word to say for termites, which have very bad consequences for wooden houses, although in
a forest they may be tolerable. We make the same kind of consequence
evaluation of all the orders of animals and plants, according to how they
affect us, even though ecology has taught us a broader kind of consequence
argument. We have learned that an animal or plant species may produce
no immediate consequence for us and yet may be a vital link in a chain
of consequences for all living creatures.
We also evaluate natural things on aesthetic grounds, labeling them
beautiful and ugly from a human point of view. Most people find centipedes and roaches ugly, swans and flamingos beautiful, especially from
a distance. Do we also attach the labels beautiful or ugly on the basis of
consequence? That is, do we call whatever species is good or at least neutral
for our welfare beautiful, and whatever harms us ugly? Yes, consequences
influence aesthetic judgments, but do not control them.
The shiver of repulsion we feel at the sight of a snake can exist simultaneously with an admiration of the snake's beauty. Coral snakes, for in-
stance, are magnificent but deadly. If something that has hideous consequences can still be beautiful, then the two appeals (aesthetic and practical)
must be separable. (For a discussion of aesthetic evaluations, see the section below.)
One curious object is perhaps constructed rather than natural, and that
is landscape. We certainly evaluate natural scenes as dull or exciting,
picturesque or sublime. But are we evaluating something that nature has
produced or something that the perceiver has created even though not a
bush has been touched? In other words, can we have landscape without
human point of view? Probably not. In fact, no one evaluated landscape
until only a few hundred years ago. Landscapes can be considered constructed in another sense, when they contain the farms and tilled fields that
are signs of human habitation. Thus, landscapes can be evaluated on
practical or aesthetic grounds.
Constructed Things
We spend a great deal of time evaluating constructed things, perhaps
because we feel we have some control over them. We choose among them,
improve them, reject them. Some of these evaluations are practical, others
are aesthetic, and a few are both.
Practical Evaluations
We make practical evaluations of constructed things according to how
close they come to fulfilling their functions. We have, as it were, ideal
de/inifions in mind of what good things of their kind should do or be, and
we measure individual things against these ideal definitions. For instance,
the good refrigerator keeps fresh food cold and frozen food frozen with no
effort on the part of the owner. We might even add the criteria of silence,
energy efficiency, and reliability. Of course, manufacturers and advertisers
add other attributes to the ideal definition of refrigerator-unlimited supply of ice cubes, cold drinks through the door, special storage compartments, and a surface that won't show fingerprints. We always have to
decide which criteria we think important and which trivial. Consumer
magazines provide us with models of the practical evaluation of everything
from spaghetti sauce to outboard motors.
Practical evaluations are little trouble to an arguer because the criteria
are usually easy to define and win audience agreement for. We can all agree
that a television set should give a sharp picture in natural color, have
excellent sound reproduction, require little maintenance, and not cost too
much. The practical evaluation of a particular set is only a matter of
comparing it against the easily defined criteria.
228
IS IT GOOD O R BAD?
EXERCISE
Establish criteria for evaluating any of the following.
1. popcorn
2. sleeping
popper
bag
3. electronic
keyboard
4. personal
7.
computer
5. airport
6 . public washroom
8. CD player
skis
9. 35 mm
camera
Aes fhetic Evaluations

Some things we evaluate not for their usefulness, but for their beauty, and
therefore the pleasure they give to the perceiver. We evaluate all kinds of
artistic products like poems, plays, piano music, and the work of artists
from Pindar and Picasso to Proust and Puccini. Everything we call Art with
a capital A is the province of aesthetic evaluation, as well as much else that
contains an element of aesthetic appeal.
You are probably thinking that preferring Rockwell to Renoir, Beethoven to the Beatles, or Melville to Michener is simply a matter of personal
taste and that arguing the superiority of one artist or work over another
is futile. It is true that some people do refuse to argue any aesthetic issue,
choosing to halt with "1 like what I like" or "That's not art to me." Since
these cliche responses are not based on impersonal grounds, they spell the
end of arguable evaluation.
But impersonal grounds do exist. For anyone willing to put aside personal preference, arguments supporting aesthetic evaluations are possible.
They work just like any other evaluation argument: The object at hand is
measured against defined or assumed criteria. But aesthetic criteria may
not be as obvious as those for evaluating useful objects. In fact, the criteria
are rarely stated in the aesthetic evaluations you are most likely to readreviews of books, movies, records, and art. They are simply assumed.
Nevertheless, we can identify and define some common elements in aesthetic criteria. These are all aids to your invention, to help you make
aesthetic evaluations.
PROPORTION
It is impossible to conceive of beauty without proportion.

-1ohannes
Winckelmann
We can admire a thing for the fitness of its parts and how they combine
to form a whole object. A Greek temple, for example, has columns of fixed
proportion, tapered finely to produce an illusion of straightness; the rela-
EVALUATION
229
tionship of the size of columns to the size of the whole temple is fixed. In
classical music a sonata has three parts in proportional relation to each
other, and in poetry a sonnet is frozen into fourteen lines, each of fixed
length. In any of the arts, to fulfill an expectation of appropriate proportion
or form is to satisfy an aesthetic criterion, while to violate such an expectation can be an aesthetic flaw. A popular song with too short a bridge may
be judged imperfect, a novel without an ending disappointing, and a picture with everything crowded to one side out of balance. Such works may
be considered lacking in proportion, the perfect relation of parts to whole.
When we find that a work of art is satisfying in its proportion, we sometimes bring in another word and praise its unity. To say that a work of art
has unity is to say that its parts fit together so well that they become one
thing.
SLIGHT DISTORTION
There exists no excellent beauty but in strangeness of proportion.

-Francis
Bacon
Perfect proportion and slight distortion are rival criteria of beauty. They
have never been reconciled, probably never will be, and need not be. The
first may be called "classical" and the second "gothic" or "romantic." Art
critics have used both authoritatively as standards of evaluation.
We have already considered proportion. What can it mean to call something beautiful because its proportions are slightly exaggerated or distorted? To begin with, distortion cannot be extreme, because extreme
distortion is ugliness. The features of a gargoyle, for example, may be
compelling but never beautiful. To turn to another more familiar art form,
in a movie we are surprised and delighted by the occasional odd camera
angle, the face reflected in calm water which is then stirred up. But a whole
movie with the camera first at knee level, then on a helicopter, then looking
in a mirror or through a keyhole, would distort perception beyond beauty.
When the form is extremely distorted-whether it is the form of picture,
poem, or music-it can interfere with our appreciation of the object.
The complementary criteria of proportion and slight distortion can be
used in the evaluation of any art form. For instance, just as we can talk
about the perfection in form of a Mozart symphony, so also can we admire
Mahler's controlled distortion of the length and content of his symphonies' movements. Just as proportion pleases by fulfilling expectation, so
also does slight exaggeration or compression give us the thrill of a ripple
in the form.
CONTRAST When we appeal to contrast as an aesthetic criterion, we are
admiring a juxtaposition, a placing next to each other, of two differing
230
. IS IT GOOD OR BAD?
elements of form, color, or content. We can admire the contrast between

the craggy vertical mountains and placid horizontal lake in a landscape
painting, the dramatic play of light and shade in a Rembrandt portrait, the
sudden shifts from piano to forte in a piece of music, the comic and tragic
plots that twine in a Shakespeare play. We find it pleasing when vivid
differences are brought together, perhaps because each element is intensified by juxtaposition. Too much contrast, however, can be an aesthetic
defect, if it jars instead of pleases.
Just as proportion and slight exaggeration are in conflict with
each other, so too are harmony and contrast in never-ending tension. The
appeal to harmony as an aesthetic criterion claims that pleasure can be
derived from gentle or subtle rather than extreme variations. When we are
not distracted by gross contrast, we can admire fine gradations and small
details. In the absence of mountain and lake, we can appreciate the undulation of prairie wheat in the wind, and in pastel paintings, all harmoniously
light, we can enjoy the subtle variations of color. The painting we know
as Whistler's Mother was called by the artist Arrangement in Grey and Blark to
call attention to its delicate harmonies of dark shades, its lack of contrasting bright color. In music, a lullaby is harmonious not just in melody, but
also in dynamics (loudness and softness) and tempo. In architecture, harmony can mean staying with the same style throughout a building. Putting
modern floor-to-ceiling windows in a Victorian house could be considered
a violation of harmony.
Too much harmony, the defect we call monotony, is the excessive
repetition of the same form, a lack of sufficient variety to keep the observer's attention. A song that repeats the same phrase or chord progression over and over again, a film that repeats the same action over and over
again (like pornography or cartoons), a housing development that repeats
the same model over and over again-all these are monotonous.
HARMONY
All the aesthetic criteria we have discussed so far are

formal; that is, they deal with the disposition of the basic elements of art
like shape, color, and sound, rather than content. Now let us turn to those
criteria that depend on the human maker and perceiver of a work of art.
We can also base an argument that something has aesthetic value on the
skill, ingenuity, inventiveness, or persistence of its maker. All of these are
elements of craftsmanship, a criterion of value that can be applied to any
made object.
How can we judge the skill of the maker? Sometimes we can infer it
from the object itself. If we examine the dense pile of a handmade rug, we
realize how many knots per square inch it contains, and therefore how
much time and effort it took its weaver. In music, we may admire both the
skill of the composer and that of the performer. We can admire the comCRAFTSMANSHIP
EVALUATION
. 231
poser Liszt for his skill in intricate modulation, and admire any pianist who
is technically competent to play Liszt. We are in awe of poets like Dante
who can sustain an intricate verse form over thousands of lines, and of
painters like Sir Peter Lely who can paint satin so skillfully we can almost
feel it.
How well we infer the skill of the maker from examination of the object
depends on how much we understand of the craft to begin with. We can
look at a Seurat painting and say "how pretty" because we admire the light
and shade of the soft colors. But if we look more closely, we see that each
bit of color has been applied as a tiny separate dot. When we realize that
Seurat's most famous painting, Sunday Afternoon on fhe Island of La Grand Jaffe,
is approximately 9 feet by 10 feet, we may well be in awe of the skill and
patience of the artist. And anyone who has ever struggled to play a twooctave scale on the piano smoothly will have a much better appreciation
of the skill needed to play the floating arpeggios of Debussy's L 7le Joyruse
than a non-musician would.
When we construct aesthetic evaluations, however, we usually do not
judge objects solely on the basis of craftsmanship. The work of art may
have been difficult to create, but at some point we may ask the question
"Was it worth making?" Someone may take twenty years to build a miniature castle out of toothpicks, but is the result art? A piece of music may
be fiendishly intricate, but the result musically banal. The works of many
great technicians in all the arts are unremembered because they do not
fulfill any criterion but craftsmanship.
Like craftsmanship, association is another nonformal criterion by which we evaluate art. We can turn to human perceivers and ask
what "meaning" the work of art has for them. What ideas does it suggest
to them, what emotions does it arouse, what does it tell them about life?
Although some critics discount "meaning" as a criterion of evaluation,
most people prefer art whose content has relevance for them. They want
to take something away, in the form of a message, from a work of art. Of
course, some works yield a meaning more readily than others and some
messages are more complex than others. It is easier to get the message from
Norman Rockwell's painting of a Thanksgiving feast than from Picasso's
M a n wifh a Guifar. But for some people the quality or complexity of the
message is related to the ease with which it can be extracted.
What kinds of messages do we get from works of art? How can we argue
for our evaluation by referring to content? Although we cannot answer
these questions here in the detail they deserve, we can suggest some of the
large categories of association. The first category is an appeal to one of the
basic human emotions: the love between mother and child in a Raphael
madonna, the ecstasy of Bernini's St. Theresa with the angel's spear poised
above her heart, the fear of Janet Leigh in the shower in Psycho, the tenderASSOCIATION
232
ness of Romeo and Juliet, the hatefulness of the bad guys in an Arnold
Schwarzenegger movie, and the laughter inspired by Charlie Chaplin's
struggle with an escalator.
Second, associations can be historical or social, political or religious-in
short, have mental rather than emotional content. We can admire the New
York skyline not only for its formal characteristics and for the craftsmanship of the buildings, but also for the associations that skyline evokes-the
spectacle of a powerful, technologically adept civilization. Such admiration
may have an emotional component, but it is primarily intellectual.
Some people see works of art primarily as vehicles for ideas. An idealogue, someone possessed with an idea, looks at a work of art for its
political orthodoxy, as the social realists of Russia do, or for its religious
content, or for its truth to Freudian or Jungian psychology, or even for its
ethnic purity. Many critics have ridden these ideological hobby horses and
asked, "Is this painting an example of Marxist realism?" "Is this novel truly
Catholic?" "How Irish is this song?" A limited ideological appeal will not
go over well in an evaluation unless your audience shares your ideology.
If they do not, the ideology itself would have to be argued for, which is
no easy matter and which would take you far from your original purpose
of evaluation.
Any work of art will spin a web of associations in your mind, but some
of them will be too personal to use as criteria for aesthetic evaluation. A
painting may please you because it reminds you of a favorite cousin; a song
may recall the happy time you first heard it. But you could not convince
an audience that the painting was good or the song beautiful because of
those personal associations.
To be useful criteria of evaluation, the associations a work of art raises
must be sharable rather than private. Only then can you hope to arouse
the same admiration in another. For example, if you look at a painting by
the French artist David, you may see a historical message in its depiction
of stoical Roman Republican virtue and argue, "This is a great painting of
the French Revolution." You may defend the value of the painting on the
ground of its historical associations. Your mild assumption is that a work
of art that represents its period has value, and the historical associations
you find could also be appreciated by someone else.
MORAL CONSEQUENCES OF ART One common form of art criticism bypasses formal criteria, completely assumes the associations that the work
arouses, and then goes ahead to evaluate the work on the basis of consequences. This kind of criticism asks, "What moral effects will this work
of art have on the beholder? Will reading this book, seeing this movie,
looking at this painting, or watching this TV show tend to produce good
or bad actions?" According to such a criterion of evaluation, anything that
produces good effects is good and anything that produces bad effects is
EVALUATION
233
bad. For example, a movie called The Warriors showed teenage gang wars
and depicted in dramatic detail all the trappings of this subculture. An
increase in vandalism and street fights occurred in many towns where this
movie was shown; in short, a strong case could be made that this movie
caused violent behavior. According to the moral criterion of aesthetic
evaluation, this movie was bad because of its bad effects.
In the case of The Warriors the link between the object and its effect was
easy to trace. An aesthetic evaluation based on moral consequence, then,
requires some form of causal argument to convince the audience that the
object could lead to the consequence claimed. But often that link is tenuous. In Eastern Europe, for example, abstract art and rock music are
frowned on as causes of social and political backsliding and therefore
considered inferior art forms.
In these nations, moral evaluation leads very quickly to censorship. But
we want to stress that any connection between judging a work of art and
censoring it is not inevitable. Even if we believe that a book or a movie
does or could have bad effects, and that therefore it is a bad work of art,
it does not necessarily follow that we should burn the book or confiscate
the movie. Whether or not a work of art is censored depends ultimately
on where we think moral responsibility for action lies, with the individual
or with society; if with the individual, we make our evaluation and stop.
Using Two Standards of Evaluation for the Same

Constructed Object
A wooden chopping block made of carefully matched end-grain pieces of
hardwood, a van with Day-Glo flames consuming its sides and red velour
upholstery, hand-painted English bone china in a delicate floral pattern, a
low-slung, aerodynamically designed racing car, a Louis Quinze writing
table, a Paul Revere silver teapot-here are objects we can evaluate both
for usefulness and beauty, both practically and aesthetically. Beauty and
function can be connected in two ways. Sometimes the beauty is obviously
added on to the functional thing, like the decorated side panels of a van.
Or sometimes the beauty is in the perfection of the functional design, as
in the falconlike elegance of the Concorde.
EXER CZSE
The following is a list of constructed objects that can be evaluated aesthetically or practically or both. Decide what criteria of evaluation you would
use for each of them.
234
IS IT GOOD OR BAD?
1. the photography in a fashion magazine

2. the cover of this book
3. the last movie you saw
4. a leather jacket
5. an apple pie
6 . a Christmas tree
7. any symphony by Mozart, any quartet by Beethoven, and any song by
Schubert.
8. a small foreign car or a large domestic one
9. your local landscape or cityscape
10. a music video
11. an F-16 fighter jet
12. the words to a popular song
EVALUATING PEOPLE
Though wisdom warns us to judge not, we constantly evaluate people
either in the roles they perform or in their whole lives. For example:
1. My neighbor is a good mother.
2. Dr. Bright is a fine scientist.

3. Wellington was a great general.
4. My grandmother is a good person.
Evaluations like these use the tactics of definition and causal argument.
Once again, if you want to establish that your neighbor is a "good
mother," you have to define what a "good mother" is and then give
evidence from your neighbor's life to show that she fits the definition. Part
of your definition will include certain qualities she possesses, such as
warmth and concern for her child's education. Another part might concern
the effects she has on her family's spirits and health and thus require causal
arguing.
In essence, what you are doing is holding an individual up to an ideal
definition of a role. Actually, the most arguable part of your evaluation
could be that ideal definition. What, for example, is a "good mother"?
That's a sensitive issue nowadays; you cannot rely on any miscellaneous
audience sharing assumptions about motherhood, as they might have a
hundred years ago. Defining a "good electrician" would be much easier.
And what about the definition of "a good teacher," "a good doctor," or "a
good president"? These become increasingly difficult.
EVALUATION
. 235
What happens when we turn from roles and try to evaluate the whole
person, calling him or her "good" or using some synonym that suggests
general approval? Again, nothing new. A vague "good" used to evaluate
a person desperately needs definition, like any abstraction. Some readymade systems can suggest criteria for judging the "good" person; Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam-all
the major religions, and even
smaller isms like dialectical materialism, deism, and vegetarianism, offer
criteria for evaluating the good person. Once again, depending on your
audience, you may have more argument over the standards than over the
person you are canonizing.
EXERCISE
Construct and defend if necessary for a specified audience ideal definitions
of the following. You may go on to compare a particular individual against
one of the ideal definitions in a full evaluation argument.
1. a
good child
a good sister or brother
3. a good mechanic
4. a fine guitarist
5. a competent waitress
6 . an adequate dentist
7. an excellent senator
8. an effective clergyman
9. an inspiring piano teacher
10. a good pastry chef
2.
EVALUATING EVENTS AND ACTIONS

Natural Acts and Events
At the mercy of wind, fire, and water, we can do little but hurl our
evaluations back into the face of nature. But just as we judge natural
objects according to their usefulness, so also do we judge natural events
and actions by their consequences. We even have the arrogance to evaluate
the weather. In one university town, for example, the local weather service
grades the weather every day from A to F: "Today will earn only a C in
236
IS IT G O O D OR BAD?
the morning, but will improve to B in the afternoon when the cloud cover
breaks." Any evaluation of a natural event will depend entirely on consequence and point of view. A flood that deposits rich, alluvial soil in the
Nile valley is good, but a flood in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, that washes
away lives and property is disastrous. A volcanic eruption may be an
exciting and magnificent spectacle, but when we put a price tag on the
damage that results, it becomes a catastrophe.
Human Acts and Events

In the arena of human actions we have enormous territory for evaluation,
taking in everything from cheating on an exam to invading Afghanistan.
But as in the case of natural acts, our heaviest reliance will be on consequence. A good action is one that produces good consequences and a bad
one produces bad. In effect, when we judge an action, we are making two
evaluations, one of the situation that precedes it and one of the situation
that follows it. A good action improves, changes a situation to a better one.
Hiring a new secretary is a good action if messy files get organized and lost
letters found. The intervention of the United Nations is good if it stops a
war and brings about a cease-fire. An action can also have both good and
bad consequences: A tax cut can be good if it encourages the private sector
and bad if it feeds inflation. When an action has a double effect, an overall
favorable evaluation would depend on minimizing bad effects and maximizing good ones.
Do we ever bring in ideal definition to judge an action or event? Yes.
We often call an action "wrong" because it violates some ethic, some code
or standard of right action, regardless of whether the act has good or bad
consequences. For example, because it is a form of dishonesty, cheating on
an exam is considered, by definition, a bad or wrong action, even though
it can temporarily produce good results for a person of hardened conscience.
The Variety of Ethical Appeals

It may be a good idea to pause here and consider how many kinds of ethical
appeals there actually are. The word ethics might make you think of the Ten
Commandments, the golden rule, philosophy, or the kind of moralistic
preaching about good behavior that comes down from authorities and has
seemingly little to do with day-to-day activities. Actually, we all must
have a sense of what actions are right or wrong-that is, a sense of ethics.
Ethics affect not only our personal lives, but also our deeds in groups,
professions, and even nations. We all like to see the right thing done,
EVALUATION
. 237
whether that right thing is as individual as going to visit a sick friend in

the hospital or as national as taking in refugees adrift in the ocean on rafts.
Might not all of the following be ethical warrants for the evaluation of
actions and events? We can appeal to these warrants as the "right thing"
with certain audiences. Self-actualization is considered a good thing. It means
becoming whatever we can become, even if we must put our own interests
ahead of the demands of others. Self-actualization can be used as ethical
justification for just about anything from jogging to studying Greek. The
opposite value of altruism, indifference to one's own welfare for the sake
of the good of others, is held by many as a higher ethic.
Family loyalty is another ethical motive for action. You would not cheat
your mother by selling her a lemon of a used car. Even the law respects
the loyalty between husband and wife and does not ask them to testify
against each other. And we all belong to larger "families" which have their
own standards of right and wrong. Being a stool pigeon is as ethically wrong
to the member of a street gang as failure to help a partner is to the policeman.
Professions are groups with their own codes of behavior. These codes
may be as formalized as the Hipporratic oath or union bylaws; a teamster
considers crossing a picket line unthinkable, and a doctor is supposed to
treat anyone in need. The ethical codes of some professions are not formalized at all, but that does not mean they are any the less there. Scholars,
for example, swear to nothing and sign nothing, but they share a strict
understanding that plagiarizing (using someone else's ideas or work without acknowledgment) or intruding on someone else's declared area of
study is unethical.
Institutions such as hospitals, universities, and corporations also have
ethical responsibilities or duties, more or less codified. A hospital should
treat the indigent; a corporation has duties to the public that buys its
product as well as to its own stockholders. Any institution, from country
club to nursing home, tries to live up to an ideal definition of what it
should do and is evaluated positively when it does, negatively when it does
not.
Religions and nations are even larger groups that declare standards of
right and wrong, usually in writing. The volumes containing the law of the
land fill many shelves, and all religions have their texts and commentaries
on morality. Since their standards are written down in such detail, we
think of la& and religion first when we think of morality or ethical correctness. Criminal and civil law define what is wrong in human interactions, but
we also carry in our minds a sense of what is right for us to do as citizens.
We respect an appeal to patriotism (short of the jingoism that equates love
of country with the mindless desire for warfare), no matter what nation
we come from. And as citizens of the United States, we find an appeal to the
Constitution a strong ethical argument.
A few general ethics cut across national and religious boundaries. As we
238
IS IT GOOD OR BAD?
might expect, these are vaguer but no less powerful than written laws. One
of the strongest is an appeal to fairness or justice itself. A desire to be fair
is the ethical standard behind many an evaluation, from a good way to
share Halloween candy to the proper way of taxing large corporations.
Most people also respond to the rightness of preserving tradition. We can
evaluate the wholesale leveling of inner-city neighborhoods as bad because the past is being indiscriminately destroyed, or country auctions as
marvelous because they preserve folkways. And these days, a very common appeal to tradition, although we might not recognize it as such, is any
claim that it is right to preserve the world, its land, its species, just as they
are today.
Similarly, an appeal to progress, the opposite of tradition, can evoke an
immediate response. That same leveling of an inner-city neighborhood
could be evaluated as good because it means new buildings for the city and
hence progress. Many people feel it was right to go to the moon, regardless
of the cost, because in that act mankind "progressed." In the same way,
it is "right" to climb mountains never climbed before, to explore Antarctica, and to cross the ocean in a balloon. It may be difficult for us to explain
why such acts are right, but we have a sense that it is right for men and
women to extend the capabilities of our species. Here, a vague claim of
general "rightness" brings us full circle to that most personal of ethical
motives, self-actualization. Anyone who takes a giant step for mankind
may also be motivated by the desire to take a small step for himself.
EXER CZSE
How would you evaluate the following actions or events? By their consequences, by measuring them against an ideal definition, or both?
1. a rock concert
2. a football game
3. a political campaign, at any level

4. a thunderstorm
5. a diplomatic action
6 . buying prewritten term papers
7. the 55 mph speed limit
8. a marriage ceremony you have witnessed

9. a Saturday night party
10. a forest fire
EVALUATION
. 239
EVALUATING ABSTRACTIONS
Abstractions like "life style," "marriage," "management," "a sports program," and "the Supreme Court" are made up of things, people, and
actions. "Life style," for example, a concept of recent invention, is certainly
made of things-cars, tennis rackets, condominiums, and grand pianos; of
people-health conscious, self-aware, up-to-date; and of actions-taking
vacations in Antigua, skiing, jogging, dedicated shopping. All of these
elements coexist in a life style and will furnish the examples for the
evaluation of that abstraction. That is, if you want to argue that a certain
life style is good, your criteria and evidence will include things, actions,
and people.
Once again, you will use ideal definition and consequence to support the
evaluation of an abstraction. But with an abstraction, ideal definition will
dominate and will itself, very often, be the focus of the argument. In fact,
every society engages in an ongoing debate over the ideal definitions of
important abstractions. What is the ideal Supreme Court-strict constructionist or activist or something else? What is the best kind of institution
of higher learning-large university, small liberal arts college, technical
institute7 What is the best life style-raise-your-own-rutabaga, hardheaded pursuit of a career, or every-house-its-own-recreational-vehicleand-swimming-pool? Of course, these labels are tongue-in-cheek but they
should remind you of what a volcano of controversy can erupt over an
ideal definition.
The second line of defense in evaluating an abstraction is likely to be
consequence. If, for example, you argue that "Urban renewal is a bad idea
because it has destroyed working-class neighborhoods," you are appealing
to consequence. But that consequence is bad only if you and your audience
have in mind an ideal definition of a city as a place where working-class
neighborhoods thrive close to its center.
You can see that consequence predominates in evaluating actions and
useful objects, while in evaluating abstractions, works of art, and people,
ideal definition comes first. You can make your evaluation even stronger
by calling on other standbys of support.
First, authority. Why should your audience accept your ideal definition
of a good painting, person, or institution rather than someone else's? One
way of heading off refutation is to bolster your definition with authority.
For example, bring in the Constitution to support your definition of the
Supreme Court, Benjamin Franklin to support your definition of a good
library, or quote a Nobel prize winner on good science.
Second, comparison. If you can count on your audience's predictable
evaluation of anything as good or bad, you can compare whatever is under
240
scrutiny to whatever is unambiguously admired or execrated. For example,

we have all heard what a magnificent city Paris is. Perhaps Washington,
D.C., falls short of that ideal in some respects but approaches it in others.
Thus, a n evaluation of Washington may be carried on by comparing it to
Paris. Similarly, almost no one admires fascism, so to compare any ideology
with fascism is to give it a very negative evaluation.
EXERCISE
Evaluate the following abstractions. First you must define them as some
combination of things, people, and actions. Make appeals to both ideal
definition and consequence and bring in any other lines of support.
1. your state legislature or city council for an audience of local citizens
2. your local public library for people who don't use it
3 . adolescence for parents of adolescents
4. the stock market for potential investors
5. the high school you went to for fellow students
6 . the revival of interest in crafts to nonparticipants
7. standard of living to a foreigner
8. retirement to someone about to retire
9. affirmative action to a member of a minority
10. political advertising to a TV audience
11. television programming to a steady viewer
12. the police (campus, town, state) to the group served
WEIGHTING CRITERIA
Suppose you are evaluating personal computers. You will have little difficulty setting u p a list of standards that a good personal computer must
meet.
1. speed
5. compatibility with other brands
2. expandability
3 . memory capacity
4. user friendliness
6 . software availability
7. price
8. dependability
Two people might nod yes to this list of standards, and yet when faced
with a choice among real computers, each may choose a different one.
EVALUATION * 241
Why? Because even though they agreed to the same standards, fhey weighted them
differently. By weighting we mean nothing more complicated than ranking
standards in order of importance. One evaluator may put compatibility
with other brands at the top of the list; another, large memory. Since any
real object is unlikely to have al? the ideal attributes, we have to make a
best choice among what is available, and that is why weighting can lead
to different choices. If price is important and the one personal computer
that does and has everything costs $10,000, out it goes.
In evaluating an object for personal consumption, weighting may be an
individual matter. Whenever we are going to spend our own money, an
evaluation must take into account our personal preference. That is, someone in a technical field might put memory capacity or speed at the top of
the list, while someone with more money might put price at the bottom.
The ranking of criteria for anything you do not personally consume can
be made on more impersonal grounds. Whenever you put together an
evaluation argument, you not only can but must weight your criteria, and
you may even have to defend your weighting. What, for example, is the
most important quality of a good manager-flexibility, sensitivity to employees, an eye on the balance sheet, or the ability to handle detail? If you
were the chief executive officer in a company evaluating the managers
under you, you would have to decide which quality is most important and
defend that emphasis. You would probably concede the importance of the
other standards but emphasize one by claiming that without it the other
standards will not work. Such an argument for weighting one criterion of
a good manager over others might look like the following:
The ability to handle detail is the most important quality of a good manager.
A manager can be imaginative in dreaming up new programs, sensitive in
handling personnel problems, and know enough accounting to make the budget
look balanced, but if the manager doesn't answer mail, return phone calls, and
get memos out on time, business will slip into chaos and all the dreaming,
sensitivity, and creative bookkeeping will go for nothing.
Any any other techniques you want to bring in to support your weighting
of criteria are fair-authority, comparison, examples.
WEIGHTING VALUES: ETHICAL ARGUMENT

Suppose you were a judge faced with the following case requiring your
ethical evaluation: Is it right for the Amish to refuse state-mandated secondary education on the grounds that any education beyond eighth grade
conflicts with the practice of their religion? Here is a case not of right action
242
IS IT GOOD OR BAD?
versus wrong action, but of two positive values in conflict, education and
religious freedom. How would you decide which is more important? The
United States Supreme Court decided that although a state has the right
to insist on compulsory education to the age of sixteen, that right or value
was not as significant as freedom of religious practice. So long as the Amish
could demonstrate that secondary education disrupted their religious beliefs (and the Amish of Wisconsin did), the Court's ethical decision was
in their favor.
What the Supreme Court did was weight one value over another. Ethical
argument involves making such very fine discriminations, ordering values
in a hierarchy to make possible the judgment of an action. In an ethical
argument, you and your audience might agree on certain values, but not
necessarily order those values in the same way. Your job in argument is
to weight one value, the one that will become the critical criterion of
judgment, above another. Evaluating values in this way is a matter of
appealing to higher values or to consequences. You might argue, for instance, that faced with a choice, being well educated is better than being
wealthy. Though both are good, the first has primacy because education
cannot be taken away, has greater benefits for the soul, and enriches all
experience so that life is fuller.
No matter what you are evaluating, from an object to a value itself, most
of the time weighting will be the crucial issue with your audience. People
are likely to agree about the relevance of a set of criteria but disagree about
which is most important in a given situation.
EXERCISE
Here are five lists of standards for the evaluation of (1)a thing, (2) a person,
(3) an action, (4) an abstraction, and (5) an ethical problem. Rank the
criteria in each list in two different ways and defend each version. You
need not work with all the criteria given.
1. Thing: an apartment (one-room studio)
a. amount of rent
b. efficiency of kitchen
c. quiet (or insulation)
d. size
e. convenience of trash disposal
f . closeness to public transportation
g. parking facilities
h. cleanliness/general condition
i. storage facilities
j. maintenance
EVALUATION
243
2. Person: a lecturer
a. clear speaking voice

b. sense of humor
c. command of material
d. interest in subject
e. good organization
f . writes clearly on board
g. uses audiovisual aids
h. pleasant-looking
3 . Action: a football game
a. home team wins

b. close score
c. full stadium
d. lots of cheering
e. good tailgate party
f . quality of half-time show
g. quality of cheerleaders
h. number of injuries
i, weather
4. Abstraction: a university
a. variety of curricula offered
b. quality of individual colleges
c. number of nationally famous scholars
d. adequacy of dorm space
e. strength of fraternity (Greek) system
f . male/female ratio
g. reputation of sports teams
h. closeness to an urban center
i. beauty of campus
5 . Ethical problem: affirmative action
a. fairness to minorities
b. good of the profession, institution, etc.
c. fairness to the well-qualified applicant
d. absence of discrimination on the basis of age, race, or gender
e. welfare of those served by the profession, institution, etc.
f . the right of a profession or institution to select its own members
g. the individual's right to pursue the profession or calling of his or her choice
COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS
All our evaluations so far have been in the simple form of X is good, bad,
mediocre (or some other judgment word). But evaluations can take two
other forms, which we will deal with briefly.
244
IS IT GOOD OR BAD?
The Evaluation as Comparison with Degree

1. Woody Allen is better than Mel Brooks.
2 . Swimming is better than jogging.
3. Paris is better than London.

4. Solitary confinement is worse than physical abuse.
The support for such statements cannot begin until you come up with one
or more classes or categories to which the objects of comparison can belong. For example, if you say, "Woody Allen is better than Mel Brooks,"
you probably mean "Woody Allen is a better actor/writer/director/comedian than Me1 Brooks." O r if you say, "Swimming is better than jogging,"
you might mean "Swimming is a better therapy/muscle builder/improver
of circulation/aerobic exercise than jogging." How might Paris be better
than London? "Paris is a better art center/tourist city/place to do business/
representative of its country/place to eat than London." If you come up
with one or more categories in which one thing can be better than the
other, you can make and organize an evaluation-with-degree argument.
Each category will need to be taken care of separately in its own miniargument.
What is the technique in each of these separate mini-arguments? The
category that both subjects belong in will provide the criteria for evaluation. Those criteria may amount to an ideal definition of the class "comedian," for example, that both Woody Allen and Me1 Brooks belong to.
Both the subjects, Brooks and Allen, are evaluated against that definition
and whoever has more of the ideal qualities of a "comedian" is judged the
better. Here weighting the criteria will be a critical part of your argument.
If slapstick is high on your list of the criteria for a good comedian, you will
favor Mel Brooks; if intellectual wit comes first, Woody Allen wins.
EXERCISE
Here are some comparative evaluations. What categories, generating criteria for evaluation, could both objects in each comparison belong to?
1. Jazz is better than rock.
2. Tennis is better than squash.
3. Science fiction is better than detective stories.
4. American cars are worse than Foreign cars.

5. It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
EVALUATION
. 245
Superlative Evaluation
1. The Library of Congress is the best in the United States.
2. The Rolls-Royce is the best car made.

3. Warren G. Harding was the worst president the United States ever
had.
4. Albania is one of the worst countries in the world.
5. Charity is the greatest virtue/Pride is the worst sin
When you argue that something is the best or worst, you will always
identify at least one category to which your subject belongs: The Library
of Congress is a library, the Rolls-Royce a car. Once you have a category,
you can construct criteria of evaluation.
For superlative evaluations you have two special tactics of support at
your disposal; you can use one or both. In the first method, you come up
with an ideal definition of "best library," "best car," "worst sin," "greatest
virtue," etc. In effect you create a class that can have only one member,
and you go on to show how the subject term fits into that exclusive class.
If you want to argue "Pride is the worst sin," you begin by defining "worst
sin." You might say pride is that sin from which all others flow, the sin
of the fallen archangels. Only one sin can be the origin of all the others,
so you have created a class with only one possible member.
In the second method, you define a somewhat larger class, the class of
near peers. In other words, you would not define "worst sin" but simply
"mortal sin"; not "best library" but "good library." A class like "good
libraries" has several members that are competing for the title "best," so
you can now proceed by refutation, showing that the other contenders do
not fulfill the criteria as well as yours. To do this, you can make a series
of "better than" or "worse than" arguments, each of which names a different attribute or a different near peer. For example, if you are supporting
"The Library of Congress is the best library in the United States," you
could come up with a series of comparative evaluations that assert the
superiority of the Library of Congress over other good libraries.
1. The Library of Congress is a better manuscript repository than the
New York Public Library.

2. The Library of Congress has more newspapers than the Widener
Library at Harvard.
3. The Library of Congress is easier for scholars to use than any other
library.
If you have a reasonable, easily accepted set of near peers, you can bypass
any explicit criteria for a "good or bad" and get right into evaluative
comparison.
246
IS IT GOOD OR BAD?
EXERCISE
Here are some superlative evaluations. Defend them by setting up an ideal
definition of "best" or "worst" or a set of near peers.
1. -(you fill in the blank) is the worst movie ever made.
2.
-(you fill in the blank) is the best Democratic/Republican
presidential
candidate.
3. -(you fill in the blank) is the worst team in baseball.
4. Chess is the best game ever invented.
5. Honesty is the best policy.
6 . Down is the best filling for comforters.
HOW EVALUATIONS CAN G O WRONG

The potential weak spots in an evaluation argument are first the criteria,
second the weighting, and third the evidence that the subject evaluated fits
the criteria. If you want to strengthen your own evaluation argument or
refute someone else's, the place to probe first is the criteria, once you find
them. They are always there but often not explicitly stated. You might first
ask, "Are the criteria sharable and plausible?" A judgment on the basis of
personal taste should not masquerade as an evaluation argument. If a
movie reviewer writes, "I did not like A Fisfful ofDollars because I don't like
westerns or Clint Eastwood," you should complain loudly that this is no
argument, just a statement of personal taste. Or if the reviewer of a TV
comedy writes, "Yes, it was side-splitting and rollicking, but it had no deep
social significance. It does not help the working class face economic reality," you might well ask if deep social significance is a plausible or appropriate demand to make of a sitcom.
Even if the criteria in an evaluation are plausible and impersonal, you
can still question their weighting. Is the evaluator making too severe a
judgment based on too minor a standard, or perhaps too generous an
assessment on the basis of an unimportant criterion? Would you, for
instance, accept the following favorable evaluation of a deposed dictator:
"True, he slaughtered thousands of his countrymen, but he was a wonderful leader because he was so colorful and did things with such panache!"
Surely you could attack such an argument on the grounds that aesthetics
are not as important as moral consequence in judging human actions.
Finally, an evaluation argument must convince its audience that the
subject really has the qualities of the criteria. For instance, you might agree
EVALUATION
. 247
w i t h a n arguer t h a t "versatility," t h e ability t o portray a w i d e range of

characters convincingly, is a quality of a good actor, b u t disagree w h e t h e r
Debra Winger, M e r y l Streep, T o m Cruise, or Michael J. Fox h a s really
demonstrated versatility.
FOR YOU TO ANALYZE

Read t h e following evaluation arguments a n d identify t h e criteria o r standards of judgment, w h e t h e r implicit o r explicit. Are a n y completely personal, implausible, o r incorrectly weighted? Do t h e authors present enough
evidence t o warrant t h e subject's evaluation?
POLLUTION IS GOOD FOR YOU

Philip W. Wesf
In general the environment is self-purifying The end result of this is good
and is appreciated by all thinking people. What is overlooked, and thus not
appreciated, is the fact that the purification process itself is of the utmost value.
It is basic in the providing of foods and material things; it is basic to sustaining
life itself. It must be concluded, therefore, that some or even most pollution is
necessary.
There are many examples. Sewage and salts such as those of iron, zinc,
manganese, and copper are essential contaminants or pollutants when discharged into rivers or the sea. After all, pure water, which even children know
is simply H,O, must be contaminated with oxygen to sustain zooplankton and
fish life and with carbon dioxide to support aquatic vegetation such as phytoplankton.
It appears that every individual and all groups and governmental agencies
abhor the thought of sewage or metal salts being discharged into waters. But
without iron in the water how would fish produce their blood, or where would
their essential trace metals come from if not from the water?
And what about food? Much of the world's population depends heavily on
seafood, but what do the shellfish and fish eat? The food chain can be considered as starting with plankton along with other small organisms which thrive
on organic matter such as sewage and so function in the biodegradation and thus
ultimately in the bioenhancement of the pollutants. Thus, the small organisms
thrive on the pollutants and contaminants and in turn are devoured by larger
organisms, and these provide food for still larger creatures, the ultimate consumer being man.
The conversion of pollution to food supplies can be seen in Louisiana where
the Mississippi River carries essential metal salts as well as sewage from hundreds of towns and cities and discharges the pollutants into the Gulf. The
248
IS IT GOOD OR BAD?
enriched waters support one of the most productive fish populations in the
world. So much nutritional material is discharged by the river that not only the
Gulf Coast is enriched, but the Gulf Stream itself is enriched and carries
the nutrients past Florida and north, making commercial and sport fishing
profitable for hundreds of miles within its currents.
It should be observed that even a few miles away from the Gulf Stream fish
are so scarce that fishing is unprofitable. There is no pollutant enrichment in the
middle of the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans; that's why Russian and Japanese
trawlers must look elsewhere for their catches.
Can anything good be said about contaminants or pollutants in air? Again
the answer is yes, although it is more difficult because, unlike pure water, air
is a mixture of many molecular and atomic species. Dirt in the air provides the
nuclei required for the precipitation of atmospheric moisture. Without dust
there would be no rain or snow, and so there would be no grass, trees, crops,
lakes, rivers-no you or me.
There are many other "goodie" pollutants in air such as oxides of nitrogen
and sulphur, trace metals, salts of potassium, etc. In other words, there are many
nutrients in air as emphasized by the growth of plants such as Spanish moss,
bromeliads, and orchids, all of which get their food from the air in which they
live. In addition to the air plants, plants in general must get much of their
nutrients directly from the air through the stomata of leaves or indirectly
through the roots which pick up nutrients washed out of the air by rain and
snow.
The viewpoint just outlined may stir up emotional objections, but the facts
presented can hardly be debated. Absolute purity in the environment would be
not only impossible but disastrous.
It must be recognized that some kinds of pollutants present very serious
problems and their introduction must be minimized. For most, however, the bad
changes to good as natural processes transform and utilize them. Pollution is like
food in that to have none is a tragedy, to have too much can cause problems.
There is a sensible range between the extremes.
SAMPLE ANALYSIS
"Pollution Is Good for You" is an evaluation whose thesis is its title. The
argument depends on two definitions: one of "pollution" and one of "good
for you." Its main appeal is to consequences: That which is good for us
enables us to thrive in our environment. To support that causal claim the
author constructs a chain-of-causes argument. People eat fish, fish eat
plankton and other small organisms, and these organisms thrive on pollutants and contaminants. Similarly, polluted air contains nutrients that are
taken in by plants and dust particles that are necessary for rain, which is
necessary for plants, which are necessary for us. Thus, according to this
argument, pollution is necessary for our survival, and certainly most of us
will grant the assumption that our survival is a "good."
Although it is difficult to attack any specific link in the chain of causes
EVALUATION
249
t h a t t h e writer presents, t h e argument becomes more s h a k y w h e n w e pick

u p t h e beginning of t h e chain a n d examine t h e definition of t h e subject,
pollution. Granted t h a t small organisms thrive o n organic matter like sewage
a n d dirt i n t h e air provides a nucleus for raindrops. But is a biodegradable
a m o u n t of sewage a n d dirt w h a t most audiences usually understand a s
pollution? T h e author's definition of pollution seems t o include all decayi n g organic matter a n d particles in t h e environment; t h e absence of such
pollution w o u l d b e "absolute purity," which is impossible a n d undesirable. The author does n o t indicate w h e n necessary and natural impurities
become excessive a n d result i n bad consequences, such as d y i n g fish o r acid
rain.
AMERICAN MADE: THE 1958 CADIL LA C

By Olivier Bernier
Brilliant colors, dashing form, and lots of chrome: that, as any American car
manufacturer knew in the late 1950s, was what the public wanted, and in an
age when more was better and most was best, it stood to reason that the
grandest (and largest) of automobiles must also be the flashiest. The roads were
open, the interstate network was growing, the suburbs were expanding, and in
that lavish and somewhat naive world, a Cadillac was the reward of success.
The 1958 [Cadillac] convertible in fact, says it all. Sculpted by General
Motors' tremendously influential designer Harley Earl, it embodied his fascination with the wartime twin-boom Lockheed P-38. The fins at the rear, the
wraparound windshield, the instrument panel-all was supposed to make the
driver feel like a pilot. Indeed, the fin itself was the special mark of the Cadillac,
the design element that at first differentiated it from all other General Motors
cars, but then it turned out to be so popular that slowly it made its way
throughout GM and the whole automotive industry.
Looks meant a great deal, but the rest also mattered. The V-8 engine represented a new standard of automotive achievement. This compact, lightweight
(seven hundred pounds dry), and silent six-liter tngine developed 325 gross
horsepower and could push the car effortlessly to speeds of one hundred miles
per hour. That was combined with the exceptionally smooth and efficient automatic Hydra-Matic transmission, while air conditioning-still a thrilling novelty-was available on sedans and coupes, and the convertible boasted an
automatically raised and lowered top.
All the chrome, the new dual headlights, and the technical innovations did
not come cheap. The Cadillac Eldorado Brougham hardtop sedan listed at thirteen thousand dollars (about fifty-two thousand 1988 dollars, a huge sum for
an American 1958 car), more than double the price of the standard model, but
that was all right. Here was achievement, visible spending on a large scale, and
the buyers wanted everyone to know it, so the fin prospered. From an oddlooking little bump over the fender in the mid-fifties, fins grew and grew until
in 1958 they were as conspicuous as those to be seen on the new jet planes.
250
IS IT GOOD OR BAD?
Outlined in chrome, sprouting from chrome-wrapped brake and backup lights,

the fins adorning Cadillacs looked, by 1959, as if they had developed a life of
their own. Immensely high, and made to look even larger by the sloping line
of the trunk, they erupted in the middle with a pair of pointed taillights that
emphasized their already spectacular thrust. At a time when technological progress was still thought to be progress itself, the Cadillac was less a car than an
early-model rocket ship made for the American highway.
These immensely comfortable, powerful cars were not inexpensive to run,
however. They consumed a great deal of gas and oil, but in an era when natural
resources seemed inexhaustible and were, in fact, cheap, it hardly seemed to
matter, especially since the automobile, and all that went with it, was deeply
felt as a symbol of prosperity. Year by year more cars were produced, more miles
of superhighway were built, more drive-in conveniences were invented. Diners
remind us of the thirties, but the fifties were the time of the carhop, meals on
trays, drive-in movies, drive-in banks. As thousands of housing developments
sprouted across the country, all far away from shops and public transportation,
cars became more necessary than ever. But they were also much more than that:
they were instant and visible glamour-and no one could mistake or ignore a
Cadillac's fins.
Then, too, their difference was especially prized in an age of uniformity.
When all those hundreds of thousands of new ranch houses looked the same,
when all businessmen wore their hair short and their suits gray, the massproduced automobile was, paradoxically, an expression of individuality. Bright,
shiny colors, lots and lots of chrome, endless options-all these inventions of
the designers in Detroit became a way for customers to affirm themselves, and
the manufacturers knew it. "You can design a car," Harley Earl said, "so that
every time you get in it, it's a relief-you have a little vacation for a while."
What came to matter most was the eagerly awaited yearly styling change,
because candy-colored bodywork and lots of chrome sold cars. In the years
ahead, less and less attention would be paid to technological innovations and,
finally, to the quality of manufacture itself. But none of this seemed to matter
as long as this year's fin sold the car, as long as last year's fin looked shamefully
out of fashion.
Automobiles-and
the Cadillac-of course, are still status symbols, but in
the late fifties these vast, gently swaying dreamboats were more than that: they
were the visible sign that this was the American century. Like other such signs,
their meaning has changed in retrospect. What was seen as a mark of dominion
now reads as a poignant appeal to our vanity. But for all that, the 1958 Cadillac
retains its place in a permanent corner of the American psyche.
THE DIGNITY OF NURSING

George F. Will
Lytton Strachey dipped his pen in the acid of his malice in order to etch word
sketches of "Eminent Victorians." However, one of his subjects proved impervious to his considerable powers of disparagement. She was Florence Nightingale,
EVALUATION
. 251
the founder of nursing as a modern profession. Strachey, unable to suppress an

emotion strange to him-admiration-wrote
that in the filth and carnage of the
Crimean War she was "a rock in the angry ocean." She profoundly influenced
hospital construction and management and nurses' education. Amazing, said
Strachey, for someone who was "merely a nurse."
Well. A nurse is a remarkable social artifact, and there are not nearly enough
nurses, in part because of backward attitudes packed into phrases like "merely
a nurse." Today's nursing shortage is not just another crisis de jour. By the end
of this century-in just 12 years-the demand for nurses will be double the
supply. Fourteen percent of hospitals in large urban areas and 9 percent in small
urban areas are delaying admissions because of the shortage. The shortage has
strange aspects. More nurses are needed because Americans are healthy longer.
And although we have more nurses than ever-about 2 million-more are
needed because people are sicker when admitted to hospitals.
The advance of medicine and public health accelerated in the late 19th
century with improved control of infectious diseases. Then the 20th century's
characterizing phenomenon-war-brought
progress in surgery and trauma
control. Next came rapid strides in diagnosis and pharmacology. Today, and
partly as a result of these advances, the most pressing medical problem is care
for the chronically ill. This usually requires intense application of nursing skills.
And because demography is destiny, we know that the need will intensify. The
number of Americans 85 or older is rising six times as fast as the rest of the
population.
Important basic needs of the chronically ill are emotional and social. But the
intense specialization and technological emphasis of modern medicine have
diminished the ability and willingness of doctors-once upon a time they were
esteemed for their "bedside mannerH-to satisfy such needs. The American
ideal of a doctor-kindly, caring, reassuring Dr. Welby-was, says Lucille Joel,
essentially a nurse. She is one. She also is a Rutgers professor and a forceful
advocate of the proposition that nursing should be accorded the dignity of a
profession parallel to that of doctors.
The crux of today's deteriorating physician-nurse relations is that many
physicians cannot understand, or will not accept, that nurses can, should and
want to do more than carry out doctors' orders. Nurses should be regarded by
physicians more as complementary and less as subordinate professionals. Physicians are an episodic presence in the life of a patient. Nurses control the environment of healing. Assisting the rehabilitation of a stroke victim or monitoring
and coping with chronic disease is essentially a nurse's, not a physician's function. A nurse-a mere nurse-superintends complex technologies, dispenses
information and health education and strives for a holistic understanding of
patients' needs, which include empathy.
For various reasons, ranging from AIDS (in New York City AlDS patients
occupy about 5 percent of all hospital beds) to the use of toxic substances in
treatments, nursing is still a dangerous profession. It also is increasingly demanding, physically and emotionally. Most people in hospitals are hurting and
frightened and their families are in distress. This is increasingly true because,
for cost-containment reasons, hospitals are increasingly reluctant to admit people unless they are quite ill. More and more patients are older and sicker and
252
require more nursing. There is an 86 percent higher ratio of nurses to patients

than 12 years ago. Then there were 58 per 100 patients, now there are 91 (spread
over three shifts).
Patients progress quickly when they can get ample assistance in walking,
eating and other elemental matters when they need it. Because of the nursing
shortage many patients either take longer to heal or are discharged feeling more
unwell than they would if given needed nursing. Furthermore, cost-cutting
hospitals are trimming the staff (ward clerks, secretaries, transport and laboratory aides) that supports nurses, who now do extra duties. Nurses are paying
a price for their reputation for versatility and dependability.
Sensibilities required: The nursing profession has a supply-side tradition of
generating a high flow of highly motivated nurses and not worrying about
retention. However, the emancipation of women, opening careers to talents, has
enlarged women's choices while making nursing, a female-dominated profession (only 3 percent are male), less attractive to young women. There are, Joel
believes, severe limits to the ability to attract male nurses, partly because of the
difference between the sensibilities required for nursing and those produced by
the socialization of men.
Nurses' salaries are low, starting, on average, at $21,000, and the ceiling can
be hit in less than seven years. Many 20-year nurses make less than $30,000.
An attorney in private practice can reasonably hope to increase his or her salary
more than 200 percent in a career. A nurse can expect an increase of less than
40 percent. Add to monetary deprivation the denial of the psychological income
of status, respect and intellectual growth and you have a recipe for a shortage.
Nightingale set a tone of brisk practicality for the nursing profession when
she noted dryly that whatever else can be said of hospitals, this must be said:
they should not spread disease. They should not be dangerous places, but they
are becoming more so because of society's neglectfulness regarding nurses. Such
neglect can have consequences for you, mortal reader. "If we live long enough,
something wears out. I don't care how much oatmeal you eat," says Joel, viewing the columnist's breakfast with as much distaste as he does. The nursing
profession must be nurtured with financial and emotional support. Otherwise,
someday when you are in a hospital and are in pain or other need you will ring
for a nurse and she will not come as soon, or be as attentive, as you and she
would wish. And the chances are, aging reader, that the day will come when
you will ring.
WILL THE WEATWEX CHANNEL SA VE AMERICA ?

James Gorman
I don't want to say flat out that the Weather Channel is the best thing on
television. That would leave out the fishing shows. Actually, the fishing shows
are the best thing on television. I saw one in which two old southern boys sat
in a boat for half an hour without catching anything. That's right, two guys in
a boat talking about what it would be like if they did happen to catch something. Zen TV.
EVALUATION
253
They weren't unhappy. They just sat there, chatting, flicking their lures out
and reeling them in. That was it. That's all that happened. The effect was that
slowly, inexorably, the compelling lack of action drew the viewer into the same
state of enlightened nothingness that fishermen experience on a slow day on a
hot lake. Largemouth bass Nirvana.
Compare this with Miami Vice, the television show that introduced to the
world the genre of action-couture. In the archetypal Miami Vice episode two
different scenes were crosscut, or interweaved, much the way tulle and taffeta
might be combined in a ballet costume. In one scene thugs were murdering some
poor woman. In the other Don Johnson was making love to another poor
woman. (My memory is hazy, but I'm sure it wasn't the same woman.) The
viewers were heaved back and forth from Don Johnson and his victim to the
thugs and their victim until the death of one and the presumptive orgasm of
the other occurred simultaneously.
Now I certainly wouldn't want to go around picking on every television
show that made me want to throw up. I'd have no time left for fishing. And my
complaint about this sex-death bit doesn't have to do with its stomach-turning
quality alone. Either scene, on its own, would have made me sick. No, what was
sad about this episode was that somebody felt it was necessary to have two
nauseating scenes at once. And that's what's wrong with television today-too
much stuff happening. On television these days there's no end to the stuff that
happens-murders,
sex, car chases, wardrobe changes. And now, I suppose,
we're going to have to have them all at once.
It's not just the action-couture series either. Television science shows (at least
those that deal with subjects other than meteorology) have succumbed to this
same undeniable urge to make everything overexciting. Salmon are always
spawning, stars are dying and being born, the universe is whirling apart, dinosaurs are going extinct, people are evolving. O n the nature shows there is the
constant drama of slaughter. (I wonder if the Public Broadcasting System understands how small a role-in terms of protein-the predator-prey relationship
plays in the life of the average American.)
You could say this is all just sour grapes on my part because my life is so
dull, but you'd be wrong. I change my wardrobe, I have sex-not as much as
on L.A. Law, but then neither does anybody else-and I was even in a car chase
once. It's true. Some lunatic driving a giant bus tried to run me off the Long
Island Expressway, all because of a vulgar gesture I happened to have made
when he cut in front of me. People are so sensitive.
No, sour grapes is not the ax I have to grind. I like my life. 1prefer my clothes
to Don Johnson's. And 1 didn't like being in the car chase at all. I just want TV
to reflect my life-style, one which I think is shared by the majority of people
in this country. It is a life that consists largely of getting the oil changed in the
car and trying to figure out, at the supermarket, whether to buy 80- or 85percent-lean ground beef. O n a big day, I go fishing and don't catch anything.
That's what was so great about the No Fish Fish Show; it was a little bit of
actual life that somehow leaked into the television world. It was just like reality.
They had only one or two camera angles, which is what we've got in our house.
And the show obviously wasn't planned to come out this way. Nobody had
edited this film to provide the suspense of fishlessness before the fish finally
254
started to bite. These guys just weren't catching anything. They had gone out
in a boat to do their show, and another boat with cameras had followed them,
and the people in both boats had spent all day on some stupid lake fishing and
talking and filming, and they hadn't caught a damned thing. Then they put this
on television.
It was a shock, like when Lex Luthor takes over the television networks in
Superman movies. I felt like Winston Smith in 1984. I had managed to remember who we were at war with. I had remembered that this was what life was
actually like-sitting in a boat with no sound track not catching anything. I took
the moment as a kind of epiphany vouchsafed to those television viewers with
an interest in bass fishing. I had no hopes to see anything like it again. I was
satisfied that one such experience was as much as anyone could hope for. But
I was wrong. I didn't know, then, about the Weather Channel.
I don't think any of us really expected science to revolutionize television, let
alone meteorology. I know I didn't. Like most people I had pinned my hopes
on our regional playwrights. In hindsight, now that I've experienced the
Weather Channel, I can see why meteorology was such a likely candidate. It has
to do with something people understand, for one thing. Rain is a far easier
concept to grasp than, say, quantum gravity, or superstrings. You can see rain.
You can even see the clouds that make it, in the satellite pictures. Like most
Americans I'm a sucker for satellite pictures. This is one reason why there are
so few television series on mathematics. No satellite pictures.
Of course, it would be disingenuous of me to suggest that meteorology did
it all. A technological breakthrough was also necessary-cable TV. With cable,
and with the wide dissemination of remote control for television, people are able
to lie on the couch and zip through 20 or 30 or 50 channels and then back again.
This makes the surfeit of action on the tube even more obvious. If you do this
for a while, you realize very quickly that there's no point in figuring out what
show you're watching or what the plot is. All television is made up of interchangeable action modules, and you can switch from car chase to sex to shooting to car chase, never knowing who is chasing or kissing whom, and never
caring.
With cable, people watch not shows but the television itself, as if they were
looking through a window to check what's going on in the street, or what the
weather is. The realization of this fact no doubt inspired the creation of the
Weather Channel. Somebody said: Let's forget the whole notion of showsthe viewers have. Let's just have one endless weather forecast that repeats itself
over and over. And let's forget about lying to the audience and claiming our
channel will be exciting. Let's just claim that if people tune in, we'll tell them
about the weather.
The result is something very much like the fishing shows, except that you
don't have to like fishing. You don't even have to like the weather that much,
because you don't have to watch for very long to find out what's going on. The
Weather Channel doesn't really have shows. It has the weather, 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, 365 days a year, delivered in bits and pieces, some as short
as a minute, some as long as three minutes. You can tune in and tune out
anytime you want. There's no violence and no kissing.
During the few weeks that I did my heaviest Weather Channel watching, I
EVALUATION
255
admit that there were no hurricanes or deadly tornadoes to throw the channel
into frenzy, so my view may be slightly skewed. But this is what I saw: two men,
or a man and a woman, with pretty unremarkable haircuts and clothes and
looks, not like Diane Sawyer making the rest of us feel dumb and ugly. And
they wouldn't talk to you as if something big were happening and you'd better
listen up, the way Dan Rather does, because something big wasn't happening.
Mostly they talked about the temperature in different places. They'd tell you
the international temperatures-84 in Rome, 92 in Bucharest. And they'd tell
you the temperatures in our country and talk about our clouds and our highs
and lows and where and when it would rain and snow. One day I learned that
it had been 18 in Great Falls the night before and 90 in Miami. It made me think.
What a diverse country we live in, I thought, and yet we're all Americans. It
was kind of amazing. And when I saw that blue jet stream, done as a kind of
video Slinky snaking across the weather map, or looked at the satellite pictures
that showed the swirling clouds uniting us all in the movements of the cold
fronts and the warm fronts, 1 felt not only that this channel related to my
life-in that the weather they were talking about was the same weather I
walked around in-but that I was part of a nationwide weather community.
That is the level of excitement I like on my television. And that's the charm of
the Weather Channel. In a world of video tarts shaking their goodies all over
the screen saying "Hey baby, want to party?" there is one plain, unadorned,
mousy little channel that says, "Hi. Some rain, huh?" To me it's irresistible.
Not that it's perfect, yet. We don't really need the maps and the blue snaky
jet stream and tbe suits and ties. And we don't need lots of different weather
people. All we really need are two guys, preferably southern, to just sit and chat
about the weather. And then, if we could just, well, I know this is asking a lot,
but if we could just put them in a boat and let them fish while they talked. Do
you see how good that would be? Once in a while they'd catch some fish. It
would rain now and then. A little drizzle, nothing big. And they'd talk about
the weather. Snow in Colorado, sun in Florida, thunderstorms in Kansas. You
could turn to them any time you wanted. Any time of the day or night you could
switch to the Fishing and Weather Channel and there they'd be, not Crockett
and Tubbs shooting up Miami, but two regular guys, your friends and mine,
fishing and talking about the weather.
FOUNDING FA THER
Hugh Lloyd-Jones
THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS.
Translated by Darid Grene. llniuersity of Chicago Press
For all practical purposes, historical writing in the West starts with Herodotus; there is no denying his importance. Had he not written, we should be
painfully ignorant of the history of the Mediterranean and the Middle East up
to his time. Also, Herodotus is a marvelously entertaining writer who, thanks
to the astonishing variety of his subject matter and to his wit, humor, and
narrative skill, can be read continuously or dipped into with delight even by
those whose ignorance of Greek prevents them from appreciating his writing
256
IS IT GOOD OR BAD?
to the fullest. He is the father not only of history but of ethnology, even of
anthropology. There is no denying either his importance or his readability. But
is the father of history truly a great historian?
Since his own century, a strong body of opinion has accused Herodotus of
credulity, of indifference to truth, even of downright falsification. Thucydides,
who was only a generation younger, must have had Herodotus in mind when
he wrote that his own history's lack of a mythical element might displease some
readers, but that it was not intended simply to win immediate success, and also
when he remarked that most people take little trouble to find out the truth. That
view of Herodotus has its upholders to this day, as I shall show presently. But
there is an even graver charge against him. It has been alleged, and by no mean
authorities, that his ethical and religious beliefs precluded him from making a
correct assessment of historical motives and connections. Wilamowitz found
that Herodotus "had neither political understanding, historical sense, nor a firm
and clear world outlook, but wavered between rationalism and superstition."
Felix Jacoby thought Herodotus to be "hopelessly handicapped by the religious
outlook which he had inherited." David Grene, however, would, I think, agree
with me that the religious outlook inherited by Herodotus was one singularly
well qualified to help him to survey world history from a detached and enlightened point of view.
Herodotus was born during the eighties of the fifth century B.C.in Halicarnassus, a Greek city of Asia Minor then under Persian rule. After his extensive
travels, he made his way to Athens. His historical subject was the invasion of
Greece in 480 B.C.by the king of Persia, Xerxes, with a vast naval and military
armament, and Xerxes' defeat by a temporary coalition of most of the Greek
communities, with Athens and Sparta playing the chief parts. Few historical
events have been more surprising or have had more momentous consequences.
In order to give an adequate explanation, Herodotus thought it necessary not
only to recount much Greek and other Mediterranean and Oriental history of
the preceding time, but also to offer much ethnographic and geographic information, mostly about the countries of the Persian Empire, which at that time
stretched from Egypt as far west as Bactria and from the latitude of the Black
Sea as far south as that of the Persian Gulf. Egypt in particular was given
extended treatment, dependent, Herodotus claims, on autopsy, and occupying
the whole of the second of the nine books into which the history is divided.
Similar treatment was given the remote region of Scythia (South Russia), to
which most of the fourth book is devoted. This kind of material occupies most
of the first six books, and the actual narrative of the war is contained in the
remaining three.
The difficulty of acquiring the information necessary for such a work, and
of seeing that it is reasonably accurate, can hardly be exaggerated. A few minor
historical works that may or may not be earlier than Herodotus may have
helped a little, but the only major work that can have been of much use was
that of Hecataeus of Miletus, who was a geographer and a genealogist rather
than a historian. The information had to be collected laboriously from diverse
informants and in the course of extensive travels. Since Herodotus does not
claim to speak any foreign language, he must have depended on the services of
many interpreters. Undoubtedly he took great trouble to collect his material and
EVALUATION
257
where possible to verify his facts; but he operated with such remote and varied
communities and at a time when the borderline between myth and history was
so indeterminate that froin the beginning his veracity could be doubted, all the
more easily because his power as a storyteller is so compelling.
Herodotus warns his readers that he puts down what he has been told, often
giving more than one version of a story and often telling us from what source
it comes; that is not necessarily a less scientific procedure than that of Thucydides, who gives only one version of each story and does not name his source.
Many of his stories are clearly myths, but that does not mean that he takes them
literally or that they lack interest or significance.
For example, Herodotus tells a story of the early years of Cyrus, the founder
of the Persian Empire, which has many of the standard features of the myth of
the birth of the hero as it is described by Otto Rank. The story is certainly not
true, but as the foundation myth of the great empire, it is of great interest.
Again, Herodotus alleges that after the defeat of the mysterious successor of the
Persian king Cambyses, the three Persian nobles who had played the chief parts
in that defeat held a debate, in which one suggested that they should establish
a democracy, another pleaded for an oligarchy, and the third, Darius, argued
successfully for the continuance of monarchy. Such a debate cannot have taken
place; but as a specimen of the Greek political theorizing of the time, the story
is not uninteresting. The intelligent reader will know how to interpret mythical
narrations of this kind. But anyone who takes Herodotus's apparent na'ivete for
real is being naive himself and has failed to reckon with the historian's wit,
humor, and irony.
Certainly Herodotus tells his story in a Framework provided by religion; but
Greek religion is totally unlike dogmatic monotheism. Its gods do not arbitrarily
change the course of nature, but work through natural processes and human
passions. Thus Herodotus can remark that it makes sense to say that the passage
through which the great river of Thessaly, the Peneus, flows between the
mountains to the sea was made by the god Poseidon, because anyone who
thinks Poseidon causes earthquakes will believe this, and it was clearly an
earthquake that made the passage. In this religion the chief god, Zeus, punishes
men's crimes against each other; but the punishment is often long delayed,
falling not on the criminal but on his descendants, so that the working of divine
justice is not easily perceived by short-lived mortals. Thus the usurpation of
Gyges, the founder of the Mermnad dynasty of Lydian kings, is punished only
in the fifth generation, when Croesus is conquered by the Persians under Cyrus.
Herodotus often speaks of envy felt against mortals by the gods. From the
human point of view, it is natural for a believer in Greek religion to think of
the gods as envying or resenting excessive prosperity on the part of mortals; yet
a god might retort, as gods do in Homer, that the so-called envy is merely the
gods' wish to defend their own due honor and the prerogatives that it entails.
Human beings, Herodotus in accordance with his religion thought, cannot
attain or keep prosperity without hard work. A family or a nation rises to power,
but then grows weak and self-indulgent and must pay the penalty. This may
be seen as the operation of divine justice or of divine envy, but in any case it
is a process so natural as to be inevitable. The Ionian Greeks revolted against
the Persians, but refused to endure the strict discipline that the naval com-
258 = IS IT G O O D OR BAD?
mander Dionysius tried to impose on them, and so were defeated and reduced
to servitude. The mainland Greeks, on the other hand, could defeat the Persians
because the Spartans had long lived a hard life and practiced for war and
because Themistocles had persuaded the Athenians to use their find of silver
at Laurium not for a general handout but for the building of a battle fleet. The
Persians, hardy mountaineers, overcame the Medes and then the Lydians, lords
of the rich provinces of Asia Minor; later the Persians in turn grew weak from
pride and luxury and were defeated, against all expectations, by the Greeks. At
the very end of the history, Herodotus tells how after the conquest of Lydia
certain Persians proposed to Cyrus that they should now abandon the mountains of Iran and live in the rich and comfortable countries they had conquered.
Those scholars who have supposed that because the history ends with what
seems to them a trivial story it must have remained unfinished understand little
of Herodotus's methods.
Dogmatic monotheism assumes that there is only one right answer to every
moral question. But for the Greek religion there can be more than one answer,
and from the clash between conflicting imperatives, tragedy results. The predecessor who influenced Herodotus most was, beyond all con~parison,Homer. Just
as Homer takes a tragic view of the siege of Troy, Herodotus takes a tragic view
of the history he records. He can observe the bad as well as the good qualities
of great men and the bad as well as the good consequences of great events; he
can treat men and nations, even those with whom he Feels a special sympathy,
with sovereign impartiality. He is able to describe the diverse customs and
institutions of many different human communities without patronizing them
from the standpoint of his own culture. The contempt that Greeks came to feel
for "barbarians" after the defeat of Xerxes formed no part of Herodotus's way
of thinking.
While the academic rationalism of the late nineteenth century was at its
height, Herodotus was often severely handled by scholars, as my earlier quotations from Wilamowitz and Jacoby will serve to indicate. But from about 1930
a reaction set in. First, Orientalists found new evidence that confirmed many
of Herodotus's statements, and later, certain historians-notably,
Arnaldo
Momigliano-vindicated
Herodotus's historical methods. During the last few
years, indeed, his veracity has again been challenged, by Detlev Fehling in
Germany and 0 . K. Armayor in this country. These critics have indeed cast
doubt on the truth of a number of Herodotus's allegations, but they are far from
having established the general unreliability even of his account of Egypt, from
which most of their examples have been taken. But even if some of his claims,
such as his belief in the flying snakes of Arabia, cannot easily be accepted, his
essential veracity as a historian must surely be acknowledged, as it has by the
late eminent historian Hermann Strasburger.
Anyone who can understand his religion must recognize Herodotus as a great
historian. The power of his tragic vision of history is enhanced by his possession
of literary gifts of the very highest order. His prose is clear, rapid, euphonious,
marvelously varied according to variations of his subject matter; he can write
in a plain and simple manner, with short sentences loosely strung together, but
he can also build up elaborate periodic structures, making effective use of many
poetical words. As a stylist, no other writer of classical Greek prose except Plato
and, in certain of his works, Demosthenes, can be compared with him. . . .
EVALUATION
259
FOR YOU TO WRITE

This chapter's classification of subjects for evaluation (things natural and
constructed, people, events, actions, and abstractions) has perhaps suggested many topics for argument. The following list of potential evaluation
theses from several disciplines may also contain one that captures your
interest or stimulates your invention of a similar one. In each case, before
beginning to formulate your argument, specify what audience in what
situation you might address.
Science and Technology
1. Evaluate a n y recent invention or technological advance. Does it satisfy any
criterion of design, or perform its function more efficiently, or lead t o good

or bad effects? Examples: superconductors, lasers, fiber optics, automatic
teller machines, VCRs, microwave ovens.
2 . Evaluate the work of any particular scientist, living or dead. Investigate not
only t h e good or bad effects of the scientist's discoveries, but also whether
his or her work approaches a n ideal of good science.
3. Evaluate a n agricultural or environmental policy or practice: clear cutting
forest land, the use of a particular pesticide or fertilizer (you may want to
compare t w o products here), no-till farming, factory farming of chickens,
bear hunting, the attempt t o build u p populations of wolves a n d cougars
i n North American forests.
4 . Evaluate the United States space program at a n y point or any period i n its
history.
5. Evaluate a n energy source or possibility or policy: wind energy, geothermal
energy, wave energy, orbiting solar collectors, fusion, or any national energy policy.
6 . Evaluate any medical breakthrough or therapy or practice: new imaging
techniques such as N M R or the C A T scan, organ transplants, routine chest

x-rays, the use of a n y particular drug for depression, electric-shock treatment, HMOs, the use of paramedics and midwives in place of physicians.
7 . Evaluate a weapon or weapon system: the neutron bomb, the M-16 rifle in
the Vietnam War, the MX missile system, the use of defoliants or biological
warfare, electronic countermeasures.
8. Evaluate the work of a n individual science writer, such as Stephen Jay
Gould or Robert Cowan, or the quality of a science magazine intended for
the general or educated public, such as Scientific American, S n ~ n r r ,or Natural
H15toi-y.
9. Evaluate a n engineering accomplishment for both its practical and aesthetic
merit: the Concorde, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Paris sewer
system, the Los Angeles freeway system, Roman aqueducts or baths.
10. Evaluate by using ethical criteria as well as consequence some significant
scientific breakthrough: recombinant D N A technology.
260
History a n d Social Studies

1. Evaluate a technological innovation that has been historically significant:
the longbow, the tank, the telescope, the atomic bomb. You might even do
a comparative evaluation: "British ships in the sixteenth century were better than Spanish ships."
2. Evaluate an educational method or policy: the mainstreaming of handicapped and retarded children, the Montessori method, special programs for
the gifted, busing to achieve racial balance, equal funding for men's and
women's sports, required musical or art education.
3. Evaluate a legal practice or a law enforcement policy: televising criminal
trials, the legal-aid system, no-fault divorce, mandatory sentencing, job
training programs in prison, restitution as a substitute for imprisonment,
grade average requirements for juvenile offenders, and plea bargaining.
4. Evaluate media coverage of a particular event, such as a political convention
or an international crisis. You can even do a comparative or superlative
evaluation to decide which network or newspaper or magazine coverage
was better or best.
5. Evaluate some historical or contemporary figure in a particular role: a president, a prime minister, a senator, a general, a Supreme Court justice, an
industrial leader.
6. Evaluate a social or psychological theory: B. F. Skinner's behaviorism, E. 0 .
Wilson's sociobiology, Sigmund Freud's theory of penis envy, R. D. Laing's
theory of madness, Carl Jung's theory of the collective unconscious, Jean
Piaget's theory of cognitive development.
7 . Evaluate an economic theory or practice: Adam Smith's laissez-faire economics, credit unions versus banks, the gold standard, government control
of industry, the social security system, computer trading on Wall Street,
arbitrage; or do a comparative evaluation of several different kinds of investments, takeovers, or mergers.
8. Evaluate an American foreign-policy decision, either recent or historical:
the Monroe Doctrine, the Kellog-Briand Pact, the Marshall Plan, United
States involvement in Korea, the INF Treaty, or our relations with a particular country over a limited time period.
9. Evaluate the performance of an athlete or a team at one event or over a
season or throughout a career: Greg Louganis at the 1984 and '88 Olympics,
Dwight Gooden in any particular year, Carl Yazstremski over his whole
career.
10. Evaluate a political theory or practice: Machiavellianism, the American
primary system, the Taft-Hartley Act, any particular department or agency
of the federal government, such as the Department of Energy or the FCC,
or do a comparative evaluation of the parliamentary system of government
versus the American.
T h e Arts a n d Literature
1. Evaluate a TV performance or series or network, or a TV personality such
as Johnny Carson, Oprah Winfrey, A1 Michaels, or John Madden. Do a
EVALUATION
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
261
comparative evaluation of PBS or a cable channel versus the commercial

networks.
Evaluate a movie. Rather than evaluating the entire movie, you might
concentrate on the acting, script, direction, or special effects. O r you might
do a comparative evaluation of two movies of the same type or by the same
director. Or do a superlative evaluation, identifying the best movie by a
certain director or the worst performance by a certain actor or actress.
Evaluate a painting or the work of one painter or a school of painting.
Imagine that you are trying to move an uninitiated audience to admiration
or distaste.
Choose a building you particularly admire (a house, a church, a campus
building, a store) and analyze its appeal according to clearly articulated
aesthetic and practical criteria.
If you have recently attended a concert or rock festival or live musical
performance of some kind, evaluate its total effect. More than the performer's virtuosity may be involved. O r you may do a comparative evaluation of two recorded performances of the same piece: Ashkenazy and
Visiry playing Chopin's Second Piano Concerto, or the Beatles' and Jerry
Lee Lewis's versions of "Roll Over Beethoven."
If you know something about musical composition, you can evaluate a piece
of music itself, either as representative of its composer or of its type: the
best work by a composer, the best cut on an album, the best or worst piece
of its kind. If you know anything about the electronics of sound reproduction, you can evaluate the technology of an album.
Write a book review in which you try to interest or discourage another
reader by your evaluation. The object of your review could be anything
from a short story to an extended work of nonfiction. Be sure you define
and defend, if necessary, your criteria. If you are studying literature, you
are in the process of learning appropriate criteria of evaluation.
Given the variety of poetry that has been written, establishing criteria for
evaluation of a poem is especially difficult. Try to convince a friend who
does not read poetry to see the merit of a poem you admire.
Imagine that you are writing a travel brochure to convince tourists to visit
a scenic spot you are familiar with. Your description of that place will
contain an evaluation and should reveal your criteria of judgment.
Evaluate the interior design of a room and its contents. Of course you may
judge its beauty, but you may instead or also apply criteria of comfort or
utility. A dorm room, for instance, may not be beautiful, but it may be
functional.
Ethical Issues
In the following controversial issues, two or more apparent rights conflict. To argue about any of them requires an ordering of values according
to importance. Take a stand on any of these issues or a similar one you find
compelling. Come up with a thesis that has "right" or "wrong" in its
predicate. Carefully qualify your thesis to include any necessary contin-
262
gencies. For example, "Is it right for w o m e n as well as m e n to serve in

combat zones?" On t h e o n e side is t h e belief t h a t if t h e sexes have t h e same
rights, t h e y should h a v e t h e same responsibilities; o n t h e other is t h e force
of precedent a n d t h e physical disparity between m e n a n d women. Possible
thesis: "With t h e exception of mothers, i t is right for w o m e n t o serve in
combat zones."
1. Is it right for a physician to give a patient a placebo, that is, a drug without
pharmacological effect, which the patient believes to be active medicine,

even though some patients do improve after taking placebos?
2. Is it right for adoptees to have access to their birth records in order to discover
their biological parents, even though the parents gave them up on the guarantee that the records would remain sealed?
3. Is it right to open the day in public schools with a time for silent meditation,
even though agnostics and atheists claim that such meditation is an unconstitutional form of religious activity?
4. Is it right for a landlord to refuse a lease on the basis of race, religion,
occupation, sexual preference, family size, or pets, even though the property
to be rented is clearly the landlord's and the landlord is responsible for its
maintenance?
5. Is it right to grant a woman alimony after a divorce, whether or not she
initiated the divorce, whether or not she has children at home, whether or
not she has ever worked outside the home during the marriage? Is the length
of the marriage or the extent of the husband's financial resources relevant?
6. Is it right for non-English-speaking United States residents to be taught in
their own language in the public schools, even though such instruction can
produce financial inequity in a school district and may slow down the
minority's assimilation and further education in the dominant culture?
7. Is it right for employers to require mandatory drug or AIDS testing, whether
or not the job involves risk to the public, whether or not the tests are
reliable, whether or not other dependencies or defects are tested for?
8. Is it right for the United States to extend political asylum to the children
of diplomats who wish to remain in this country rather than return to their
own, even though their parents want to return and even though the practice
establishes a precedent for American diplomatic families living abroad?
9. Is it right for the economically ailing United States of the 1980s to refuse
refugees from political, economic, religious, or racial oppression, even
though the nation was built by such refugees?
10. Is it right for television news shows to broadcast nationally the projected
outcome of elections on the basis of sample precincts, even though voters
in parts of the country where the polls have yet to close may be influenced
by such projections?
Part Four
WHAT SHOULD
WE DO ABOUT IT?
The Proposal: Arguing

About What Should
Be Done
When we learn that something is going wrong-our football team has lost
its last five games, seventh graders are smoking pot, people are starving in
Ethiopia-we ask the fourth and most practical of the great questions:
"What should be done about it?" The argument that answers this question
is a proposal. Such an argument "proposes" or urges some action; it says
that something ought to be, should be, needs to be, or must be done.
A proposal is a very common kind of argument. We make proposals in
every relationship and area of life: to ourselves and to each other, at home
and at work, in our community and in government. The following proposals demonstrate this range:
1. I should practice piano two hours a day.
2. We should put a new septic tank in our back yard.
3. We need to expel the troublemakers from the sixth-grade classroom.
4. We must conserve paper in this office.
5. Our community should build a new indoor swimming pool.

6 . Our state ought to have a scholarship program based on merit only.
7. The United States should intervene in Angola.
8. Mankind must preserve the earth for future generations.
266
. WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT?
Arguing for a proposal does not require any new techniques. You have
already learned all the techniques you need when you learned how to
argue about what things are and how they got that way. The proposal
simply combines tactics you are already familiar with-definition, evaluation, comparison, and causal argument. Constructing a persuasive proposal
is a matter of choosing the necessary arguments and arranging them in a
convincing structure.
In the following sections we will show you the balanced structure of a
full, formal proposal, take a look at several types of arguments that are not
quite full proposals, and suggest when either the full or short forms are
useful.
KINDS OF PROPOSALS
Before we talk about the contents of the full proposal, we should look at
one important way to distinguish one kind of proposal from another. To
put it simply, some proposals are more specific than others. We can have
proposals as vague as the following:
1. We should do something about this problem.
2. This situation needs to be improved.

3. We must not tolerate this state of affairs any longer,
And we can have very specific proposals:
1. 1 should get up at 6:30 tomorrow morning and run three miles around
the golf course before breakfast.

2. The Cessna 250 needs a green knob on the wiper control on the left
side of its instrument panel.
3. The Secretary of State should meet with the Cultural Affairs Minister
of Bulgaria in the lobby before the opera.
Actually, we can think of proposals as on a continuum from the vague to
the specific:
1. Our high-school science program needs to be improved.
2. We should upgrade our lab equipment.

3. We need to buy seventeen new stereo-microscopes for the biology
labs.
The situation and audience will determine how specific a proposal needs
to be. If you are just sitting around griping with your friends about what
THE PROPOSAL: ARGUING ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE DONE
. 267
is wrong with your science program, you might come up with the first
proposal above. If you talk to the teachers or principal about the problem,
you might come up with the second proposal in addition to the first. But
if you go to the school board to get some action finally, you will also have
to come up with the most specific proposal, the third one. How specific the
proposal is determines the content of the argument supporting it. The more
specific the proposal, the fuller the argument has to be, though not necessarily the longer. It may not be difficult to convince people that improvement is necessary, but if you want money to buy microscopes, you need
to do some hard arguing.
THE PARTS OF THE FULL PROPOSAL

We are going to give you advice on how to argue for the most specific
proposal because it requires the fullest treatment. But you can adapt the
method, choosing the parts you need for audiences in situations where a
full proposal is unnecessary or inappropriate. In its fullest form, the proposal argument breaks into two parts that flank the proposal statement
itself. You can think of the full-proposal argument as an hourglass, with
the proposal statement at the neck. Here is the typical arrangement of these
three essential parts:
I. preliminary arguments-convince
2. proposal statement-suggest
an audience that a problem exists

general or specific response to the prob-
lem
3 . supporting arguments-convince
an audience that a specific action
should and can be taken

Each of these sections can be further broken down.
PRELIMINARY ARGUMENTS
The Demonstration: "We Really Have a Problem"
What is the aim of the proposal argument? It asks for action from its
audience, either to change the way something is being done now, to initiate
something new, or even to stop something. In most cases, the arguer will
begin by pointing out that things as they are now are not the way they
should be. Therefore, a proposal argument often opens with a demonstration that the present state is in need of improvement. In effect, the arguer
points a finger and says, "Look at that mess!"
268
WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT?
Just how much of a demonstration section your proposal needs depends

on the obviousness of the problem and the awareness of the audience. If
you are standing in downtown Johnstown the day after a flood and
proposing a rebuilding project to the former residents, you will not need
much of a demonstration section. You can literally point around you. But
if you are writing to the appropriate agencies in Washington to get funding
for this same rebuilding program, you will have to demonstrate in words
just how bad things are in Johnstown.
If the audience is not aware at all of the problem that needs to be solved,
a demonstration section will be a necessary and important part of the
argument, maybe even the bulk of it. Imagine, for example, you want to
propose to an audience of consumers that factory farming be replaced by
more humane methods of raising animals. Since most people are not aware
of the techniques used in factory farming, any proposal to enlarge cages,
provide straw, light, and fresh air for chickens or better diet for calves
would first have to inform its general audience that these basic comforts
are absent.
An audience can be anywhere between complete ignorance and full
awareness of a problem. Sometimes the demonstration section may simply
have to remind them of a problem they are already more or less familiar
with. For example, the residents of a particular community may have heard
about the problems of senior citizens, but they may have general rather
than specific information. They may not be aware that in their town 3,000
men and women above sixty-five live alone in substandard housing, that
20 percent of them suffer from malnutrition, and that last winter three old
people froze to death in their unheated apartments. You must provide this
kind of specific information to make the unaware aware.
As the above example shows, the demonstration section can give an
overall picture, provide trenchant statistics, and bring generalizations alive
with specific examples. Thus, while the demonstration section informs, it
has another function as well. It can begin to arouse the convictions and
emotions that will bring your audience to support your proposal.
The demonstration section of the proposal argument has a claim about
a state of affairs for its thesis, e.g., "Many old people live in poor conditions." Remember the steps for supporting such a claim. Do you need to
define any terms? How much evidence might your audience need? These
matters are covered in Part I.
You will get a better sense of the full-proposal argument if one sample
proposal is carried through all the stages. Here is the demonstration section
of an argument written for a university newspaper.
Last Friday night, I had an English paper and a set of chem problems to work
on, so I turned down my roommate's invitation to go party hopping at fraternities. While my roommate showered I sat down at my desk with self-righteous
269
satisfaction. I lined up my calculator with my open chemistry book; I had a clean

page before me and a sharpened pencil. As I wrote down the first problem, my
roommate slammed back into the room, unpacked her closet, and emptied her
drawers looking for something to wear. That was the first of eight interruptions
in thirty-five minutes. I can be exact about that number because I had pencil
and paper to keep score, and they were useless for doing chemistry problems.
Three people came in to borrow clothes, records, and money; one came in crying
because she and her boyfriend had just had a fight. Two girls down the hall were
having a water battle with their dates, someone across the quad was testing the
range of his stereo equipment, and my mother called to ask how I was doing
in my courses. So much for chemistry; I gave up and went to the party with my
roommate.
The next day, football Saturday, I had band practice in the morning and
spent the afternoon at the game. I had set aside Saturday night in my mind to
tackle my chem problems again. This time I was wise enough to get out of my
room. Since the main library was closed, I headed for the study lounge on my
floor. That was a mistake; there were sixty people dancing in there, the nucleus
of the floor keg party that spilled out into the hall in both directions. Maybe
the student union lounge would be quiet on a Saturday night? Well, it was
relatively quiet-but crowded as well. Every seat was taken. Since I didn't feel
like sitting on the floor, I walked back to my dorm, past the closed library.
Am I so unusual? I wondered if other students, any other students, ever tried
to study on a weekend night and Found it impossible. So on Monday morning,
I took a survey in my English and chem classes. Since most freshmen take these
courses and there is nothing unusual about my sections, I had a representative
sample of freshman opinion. I found that roughly one-fourth of the students
studied-or tried to-on either Friday or Saturday night. Now one-quarter of
the freshman class is roughly 1,000 students, wandering around campus with
calculators and pads of paper, trying to find a quiet place to work.
Undesirable Consequences of the Situation

Your demonstration section may convince your audience that a situation
exists, but not necessarily that this situation is a problem. To create in your
audience a conviction that a situation is a problem is quite simply to
evaluate that situation as bad. As you know from the preceding chapter
on evaluations, you can do so by showing that the situation has undesirable consequences or is ethically wrong or both. Let's consider the first
method, showing how the situation leads to undesirable consequences:
how, for example, arson leads to inflated insurance rates, how wife abuse
produces maladjusted lives, how aerosol sprays affect the ozone layer.
These consequences are established by causal arguments.
Consequences may be either relatively obvious or not. If they are not
obvious, you should certainly trace them for your audience, and if you can
bring the bad effects home to your audience, you will arouse in them a very
270
WHAT SHOULD WE D O ABOUT IT?
strong incentive for change. How, for example, can lawn-proud suburbanites be persuaded not to use chemical fertilizers? Only by having a very
undesirable consequence shown to be harming them: The fertilizer chemicals are seeping into their own drinking water.
Before you construct your "bad consequences" section, think over the
following ways in which an audience can be unaware of the effects of a
situation.
Ways an Audience Can Be Unaware

First, people may simply be ignorant that any effects exist at all; the public
did not know, for instance, that some insecticides irreversibly build up in
the fatty tissues of animals in a food chain until Rachel Carson pointed
that out in Silent Spring.
Second, consequences may appear bad only from a certain point of view.
Machine-dialed commercial phone calls, for example, may be of some
benefit to the stores, mail-order houses, and magazine agencies that make
them, but they can be an intrusive nuisance from the consumer's point of
view. Often an arguer needs to show that a group the audience identifies
with or has sympathy for is harmed by a situation.
Third, the audience may be unaware of the extent of the consequences,
even though they may know that a consequence exists in any single
instance. We all know that arson destroys lives and property, but we may
be surprised to learn how many lives and how much property. The very
extent of a problem can produce its own consequences: The prevalence of
arson leads to increased insurance rates and cost of fire protection for all
property.
Why Inform the A ware?

Often the undesirable consequences of the situation are well known to the
audience, but even then pointing them out may be worthwhile. Probably
everyone is familiar with the effects of cigarette smoking, but if you are
trying to persuade your father to stop smoking, you should pull them all
out again. Listing effects when they are not known serves the two purposes
of informing and convincing; listing them when they are known may still
be convincing. What everybody knows, nobody cares about. So the art of
the arguer is to turn dull acknowledgment into vivid awareness. Any push
toward action, such as the emotional appeal of bad consequences, is useful.
Evaluating the Consequences

There is one crucial thing to remember about consequence arguments.
Behind every demonstration of bad consequences stands an ethical evalua-
. 271
tion, a judgment that the consequence is bad. Demonstrating that a situation has consequences can be one thing; showing that these consequences
are bad or undesirable may be another. We may, for instance, agree that
the consequence of putting a bounty on wolf pelts is the extinction of the
species. But some people may say, "So what?" They may not think that
the extinction of wolves is such a bad idea. To substantiate the badness
of a consequence that is not self-evidently undesirable to a particular
audience may require another consequence argument or an ethical appeal.
To continue the above argument, for example, we may have to argue
further that the extinction of wolves would be bad because the forest
would become overpopulated by deer.
Let's now find out how the situation of not being able to study in the
dorm brings about bad consequences.
After that Frustrating Friday and Saturday, I spent all day Sunday trying to
do chem problems while I felt guilty about not doing my English paper, or
working on my English paper while unsolved chem problems nagged at my
mind. I ended up doing neither assignment well despite the good intentions that
made me attempt to start Friday night. 1 owe a C on an English paper and a
backlog of chem problems to that frustration. I imagine that many other students are suffering from the same problem.
Since that weekend, I have given up trying to study on Friday and Saturday
nights. I now go partying with my roommate even though 1 probably need
to study more than five nights a week to get good grades. But what's the use
when there is no place to study anyway? I often wonder how many of the
students I see wandering around downtown from pinball parlor to pizza palace
wouldn't just as soon be in a quiet place, pulling their heads together and their
grades up. It's nc wonder that 20 percent of the freshman class flunks out
the first year, and only 50 percent of each entering class graduates four years
later.
An Ethical Assessment of the Situation

Here is another way to convince your audience that a situation is a problem. You can say that a situation should be remedied not only because of
its undesirable consequences, but also because it is simply wrong, no
matter what the consequences. Any appeal to an audience's sense of what
is right or wrong is an ethical appeal. (See the sections on The Variety of
Ethical Appeals and Weighting Values: Ethical Argument in Chapter 12.)
If you can assume that your audience will immediately agree with your
ethical appeal, all you have to do is claim that the situation you want to
change is wrong.
272
The Assumable Response

For example, everyone will agree that child abuse is a moral horror. Of
course, its consequences are damaging too, but even if it had no consequences it would still be wrong in itself. We all agree that slavery is wrong,
even if it had some good consequences, at least for the owners of the slaves
and the economy of the country, if not for the slaves themselves. Some
audiences will automatically perceive birth control, divorce, welfare, gun
control, or the Chicago police as absolutely wrong in any or all circumstances. You should know when you can expect from a particular audience
such a unanimous response to an ethical appeal. When you can, you do
not need to argue ethics; you simply appeal to them.
What to Do When the Response Is Not Assumable

O n the other hand, many issues do not call forth an immediate ethical
response and many audiences will not easily see the ethics of an issue.
Whether it is the audience or the issue that will not come around easily,
in such cases you have to work for an ethical appeal. The only workable
technique is a kind of definition argument: You place the situation in an
ethical category that your audience will react to.
Suppose you are proposing a replacement for quota systems in medical
school admissions. You have to convince your audience that the present
situation, the quota system, is bad and should be removed. You can point
out its bad consequences, but you may also want to argue that a quota
system is simply wrong in itself. Because your audience will probably not
recognize quota systems as ethically wrong, you have to place quota systems into a class that the audience will have an immediate response to. You
can do that by defining a quota system as a form of discrimination.
Chances are your audience will immediately recognize discrimination as
ethically wrong. Similarly, you might argue that factory farming is a form
of cruelty to animals, that collecting unemployment compensation is a
form of fraud, that turning off a presidential address on television is
unpatriotic. In each of these examples you are trying to place a subject into
a category your audience will judge in a predictable way.
Here is the ethical assessment section of our continuing sample proposal. What appeals are being made?
I often have to remind myself why I and 30,000 other people are here.
Supposedly we came to get an education, to learn about things we never heard
of before and to prepare ourselves for a career. Of course, most of us agree that
there is more to college life than studying. That's why I'm in the band, and I
enjoy an occasional party. But sometimes two nights every weekend are too
much socialiting for some of us. Surely students in a dorm should be given a
chance to study if they want to.
. 273
Every term my parents pay my dorm bill. I have a loan to cover tuition, and
everything I earn in the summer goes to pay for books and incidental expenses.
And many people have a harder time financially than I do. It isn't fair to pay
that much money every term and not get in return the facilities to do what I
came here to do-learn. The university has a responsibility to provide not only
instruction in the classroom but also support outside it. Since the university
requires students to live on campus their first year in overcrowded dorms, they
should at least make quiet places available, even on weekends, for those who
want them. It really seems ludicrous that the hardest thing a college student
should have to go through is finding a place to study.
EXERCISE
Write a paragraph addressed to an audience that is unaware, demonstrating that a problem exists in the following areas:
1. In your college or university
a. a safety problem
b. a housing problem
c. a problem relating to student recreation facilities
d. an administrative problem
e. a course-availability problem
2. In your town or city
a. a parking problem
b. a zoning problem
c. a transportation problem
d. an education problem
e. a tax problem
3. In a course you are studying
a. a problem with a text
b. a problem with the instructor
c. a problem with the organization of the material
d. a problem with the amount of work in a course
e. a problem with the grading
Causal Analysis of the Situation to Be Corrected

Once we have convinced our audience that an undesirable situation exists,
they might naturally ask, "How did it get that way?" To answer that
question is to find causes, and often to find causes is to find a clue to a
solution. It makes sense that one way to correct a situation is to attack the
274
causes that have produced it. O u r proposal may be designed to alter or

eliminate the causes and therefore to alter or eliminate the effect.
If we are convinced, for example, that violence on TV causes violence
in children, we can work to reduce the violence on TV; if we know that
mosquitoes carry malaria, then we can work to control mosquito populations; if we have evidence that a poor translation caused diplomatic friction, we can fire the incompetent translator.
We may have to convince our audience that we have identified plausible
causes of a problem. Otherwise, they won't accept the solution designed
to change those causes. The proposal argument will have to incorporate
causal argument here as well, using any of the techniques described earlier.
The purpose of your causal argument here will be to identify necessary and
sufficient causes without which the effect cannot occur, or blocking causes,
the kind that will stop the effect. The following example will help you see
the place of causal analysis in a proposal argument.
Suppose you are confronted with and affronted by a polluted river. As
a reformer, you can propose two types of solutions. First, you can apply
remedies to the effect itself by proposing that a filtration plant be built to
purify the waters continually or that an effort be organized to dredge the
muck. But notice that remedies that attack only the effect often require
continuous application: The filtration plant will never be turned off, and
the dredging will have to go o n indefinitely.
Second, you may take a trip upstream and see the enormous industrial
complex dumping waste into the river. You may decide to attack this cause
of pollution instead of or as well as the pollution itself. You may propose
that each factory be required to install its own filtration system or that all
the factories dispose of their wastes in another way.
As you can see, in some situations a proposal that attacks causes of a
problem is more convincing than one that attacks effects alone. Attacking
causes, when you can get at them, can produce a permanent solution.
However, in other situations, the causes are unreachable. An audience in
the United States cannot change the entire political structure of North
Africa to prevent famine, and no audience on earth can stop sun storms
to improve radio transmission.
Our continuing proposal now turns to causal analysis.
Why is it so difficult to study on the weekend at this university? There are
many reasons. First of all, the dorms are crowded. No single rooms are available,
and many small rooms that used to be singles are now doubles, crammed with
bunkbeds. Put hundreds of us in overcrowded conditions and we are bound to
be noisy and trip over one another. Add to that the fact that almost everyone
has a stereo, many of them with 100-watt-per-channel amplifiers that would
fill a gymnasium with sound, let alone a 10-foot by 10-foot dorm room.
Now not even the world's worst grind would want to study every weekend.
275
We all need to release tension, and Friday and Saturday nights are the natural
times to do so. But even a few students partying, let alone most, are enough to
make the dorm temporarily uninhabitable for anyone who needs silence. Since
the minority of students have no right to silence the majority who want to party,
the minority must go elsewhere. But on this campus there is no elsewhere. The
few places that are open are crowded. Most of us cannot go home every weekend. Worst of all, the one safe centrally located place to study-the library-is
closed. After 5 0 0 on Fridays and Saturdays, the doors are locked, the long tables
bare, hundreds of chairs empty, and thousands of books inaccessible.
If you did the previous exercise, you have demonstrated the existence of
a problem. Now build on that by adding a causal analysis of the situation.
You should, if possible, identify a dominant cause or one that can be
changed. Look in particular for responsible agents or the absence of blocking causes. A factor contributing to the problem may even be the failure
of other proposals to solve it.
PROPOSAL STATEMENT
General Proposals
After you have roused your audience to the awareness of a situation, its
bad consequences, its ethical wrongness, and its causes, the next step is to
suggest what should be done about it. In some cases you may not know
exactly what should be done, or you may think it is not your place to
propose the solution. So you may end after your preliminary argument,
which is actually a negative evaluation, with a vague proposal such as:
"Why doesn't somebody do something about this?" "Let's form a committee to study the matter and come up with a proposal." "The people responsible should be informed so they can correct the situation."
Some of these vague suggestions might be called passing the buck,
although it is only fair to say that such general proposals have many
legitimate uses. A general call to action is one way for an individual with
no power to arouse conviction and emotion in an audience, which can in
turn demand action from those with power. Exposes of election corruption,
sawdust in sausage, birds poisoned by pesticides eventually have aroused
appropriate responses from those in a position to do something.
276
The Specific Proposal

Of course there is a continuum from the very general to the very specific
proposal, but usually the specific proposal provides an exact description of
what action should be taken to correct a situation and sometimes offers
elaborate supporting arguments for that precise solution. A specific proposal statement can be wedged into one sentence, while some rather intricate proposals may take considerable space simply to explain. A proposal
that the Defense Department develop a new ICBM will itself be very
elaborate and detailed. A proposal that "refrigerators should be permitted
in dorm rooms" may be just that, complete in one sentence.
Although we all like to sit around and propose schemes for a better
world, we do not usually bother to argue for a specific proposal unless we
are addressing an audience that can take action. A student who is prevented from studying by the noise in the dorm, for example, might complain vaguely to his roommate that something should be done about the
stereos, shouts, carousing, and water fights. But as a member of the dorm
committee that had the power to make and enforce regulations, the student
might urge the adoption of specific rules for quiet hours.
The path to authority may be relatively short and direct in a dorm. But
in our tangled bureaucratic society, we often have trouble finding our way
to the people who have the authority to act on our specific proposals. With
whom do you argue if you think the electric company should read your
meter every month instead of every other month (that is, who is hired not
just to listen to complaints, but actually to change things)? Who can
implement your proposal that realistic guns be removed from toy stores or
that the United States adopt a new policy toward the Middle East? If you
want to argue for any specific proposal, you have to find out who can
change things.
Two Paths to the Same End

In real-life situations, actually moving people to take action on a specific
proposal can require different appeals to different audiences. When you
want to move different groups of people to different actions that are,
nevertheless, means to the same end, you must carefully adapt arguments
to these groups. Suppose, for example, that the president of a tenants'
union, outraged by a recent 30 percent rent hike, proposes to her landlord
that he hold to a lower ceiling on rent increases (not an easy line to take
with a landlord). To put pressure on the landlord, the angered tenant may,
at the same time, propose at a tenants' meeting that her fellow residents
277
organize a rent strike. These two proposals, although they are both strategies to the same end, are aimed at different audiences and would obviously
have to be different. The appeals and language that would arouse tenants
to the unfairness of their situation would not persuade the landlord.
But sometimes you can use the same appeals with two different audiences, leading to two different actions. Many such dual-purpose proposals
appear in newspapers and magazines every day. These are specific proposals that argue fully for a desired change, but one that no single individual
or group could bring about alone. Such proposals are often put where the
public can see them, as well as those who have the power to bring them
about. For example, we might read in the newspaper a detailed argument
urging that the United States extend diplomatic recognition to Cuba. Such
a proposal is legitimately addressed to the people in government who have
the constitutional authority to bring such an action about. But the average
citizen, who is not in Congress or the State Department, cannot individually go out and recognize Cuba. So why is the argument aimed at newspaper readers? Obviously, some action is desired from the public. That
action, at the very least, may be our awareness or at the most, an expression
of that awareness in the form of telegrams, letters, phone calls, and votes.
The publicly aired proposal has still another function. Making public a
proposal that could be sent directly to Congress, the FDA, the CIA, wherever, is a way of putting pressure on the powerful. In our society, officials
feel a duty to respond to issues that have been brought before the public.
And we as citizens have a corresponding duty to express our views, if we
can do so rationally and responsibly. Our continuing sample has two
audiences: the student body and the university administration. Now that
its preliminary arguments are completed, here is the specific proposal:
The solution is obvious. If the university were genuinely interested in the
welfare of its students as students, it would unlock the doors of the library on
Friday and Saturday nights. A library open twelve more hours a week would
be a place for the hundreds who want to study to get away from the thousands
who don't.
EXERCISE
You have already demonstrated the existence of a problem and identified
its cause or causes. For what audience would only a general proposal be
appropriate? What audience could legitimately have a specific proposal
addressed to them? Write at least two possible proposal statements for
different audiences.
278
. WHAT SHOULD WE D O ABOUT IT?
SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS
The Good Consequences That Will Flow from the
Proposal
No one argues for a proposal that would bring about bad consequences.
Every proposal, even one to do nothing or to undo something, promises
good things to come: A proposed new sewer system will give better drainage; brushing with brand X will whiten teeth. Such promises must be
substantiated with causal arguments that predict how the proposal will
bring about good things. Here we see again how crucial causal argument
is, especially prediction arguments, in a proposal.
To make these predictions of good things to come from your proposal
seem inevitable, two causal techniques are particularly helpful. These are
the chain of causes and analogy. Let's demonstrate these supporting techniques in the following two examples. Suppose you make a do-nothing
proposal: "Alaska should not be carved up into any more National Parks."
In your "good consequence" section, you will come up with a mini-argument for the following prediction: "If the government refrains from creating parks, the Alaskan wilderness will be preserved." This prediction can
be supported with a chain of causes:
No roads 4
No vehicles 4
No people 4
No parks 4
No disturbance 4
Preserve the wilderness
(This argument assumes that there is no other source of roads and all the
things that follow from roads.)
A basic technique for supporting a prediction is to zero in on agency
itself, to find a chain, as it were, with one link in it. You are more familiar
with this technique than you may think because you hear it all the time
in commercials: Toothpaste X has a whitening agent to give you brighter
teeth; bathroom cleaner Y has scrubbing bubbles to make your sink sparkle;
shampoo Z has protein to make your hair thicker. Advertisers often claim
that agents (that is, agency) are present, producing wonderful results and
supporting the unstated proposal that "the customer should buy."
A prediction can also be supported by an analogy if you can find another
case where the same policy you are proposing has led to the very same
effect you are predicting. In other words, you argue that if proposal-led-toresult "there and then," proposal-will-lead-to-result "here and in the future." Suppose, for example, you are proposing a job training program- for
welfare mothers in your area and you want to support the prediction that
"Job training for welfare mothers will cost taxpayers less than supporting
them at home." You could cite the result of job-training programs versus
. 279
straight welfare i n comparable cities. To support your prediction, y o u will

present evidence t h a t X city, w i t h a training program, spent fewer tax
dollars per welfare mother over a certain period of time t h a n Y city, w h i c h
simply paid welfare mothers w h o stayed a t home. W h e n y o u can find such
a n analogous case, i t is as though a n experiment w i t h y o u r proposal h a d
been performed in another laboratory; y o u simply predict t h e s a m e results
f r o m y o u r similar set of givens.
Here is the n e x t section supporting t h e specific proposal i n o u r continui n g argument:
An open library is a benefit not only to students who carry texts, notebooks,
and calculators around looking for a place to put them down and study. It is
also a benefit to students who have work that can be done only in the library.
One of the girls I talked to when I surveyed my chemistry class was a nursing
major who said she had several papers to do this term, all of which required a
considerable amount of research. She would welcome access to the periodicals
in her field, even on Friday and Saturday night, and so would many others who
have to write papers requiring extensive use of library materials. And let's not
forget the students who work to put themselves through school. Their study
hours are pared to a minimum and they may need library services at odd hours.
One business major in my English class complained bitterly about the library's
weekend hours. He works twenty hours, several evenings a week, and must
make maximum use of his weekends for studying. If the library were open, he
would have access five extra hours a week to the documents and reference
materials he needs. Undergraduates are not the only ones who would use the
library on weekend nights. Our campus has five thousand graduate students
whose academic interests a;e demanding. No doubt they would appreciate the
extra hours to work on their theses, as would some faculty members to work
on their books and articles.
The Bad Consequences That Will Be Avoided If

the Proposal Is Adopted
Remember t h a t a proposal is designed t o correct a situation t h a t h a s led
to undesirable consequences. You probably demonstrated t h e existence of
this b a d situation a n d traced its bad consequences earlier, before y o u m a d e
y o u r full proposal. T h e desire t o eliminate a situation a n d its bad consequences provided a strong motive for change t o begin with, w h e n your
purpose w a s simply t o m a k e your audience receptive t o change. Now, after
y o u have disclosed your specific proposal, y o u m a y w a n t t o remind your
audience of all t h e evils t h a t will b e avoided if y o u r solution is adopted.
For example, w h e n t h e government recalls defective radial tires, t h e number of accidents caused b y blowouts will decrease. W h e n processed meats
are eliminated f r o m t h e diet, nitrate levels i n t h e blood will go down.
280
You can do this "reminding" briefly, by simply mentioning again what

the world will be better off without. O r you may want to go into a fuller
discussion, even if it is repetitive, just for the sake of emphasizing this
appeal. Of course, if you have not already traced the bad consequences to
be avoided in your preliminary arguments, you might want to do it now.
But if you have done it, and done it thoroughly, and do not think that
repeating it will lend any persuasive force to your argument, this whole
section need not exist.
What kind of claim do you have to support here? Again, a causal one.
If you want to argue that certain bad consequences will be avoided, you
are, in effect, claiming that a chain of causes will be broken or a sufficient
cause removed or blocked. Since the bad consequences follow inevitably
from the cause that you want to replace, you will simply argue that once
a critical cause is removed or blocked, bad consequences will disappear and
good ones take their place.
Let's look at a proposal whose effect will be simply the elimination of
bad consequences. Arson destroys lives and property and ultimately raises
insurance rates and the cost of police and fire protection for all of us. If you
propose that insurance companies pool their resources to form arsoninvestigating squads, you will want to show that once these squads have
caused the number of cases of arson to decrease, the bad effects of largescale arson on the average citizen will also decrease.
Here are some of the bad consequences that a library open on weekends
might eliminate. Notice the fringe benefit, the avoidance of quite a different bad consequence.
A library open on Friday and Saturday nights would also help some students,
me especially, avoid those occasional all-nighters, when, with the help of too
much coffee, I produce something far less than my best work. And if I had
someplace else to go, I might not cringe at the sight of my roommate's boyfriend
on campus for yet another football weekend.
A further benefit might result from longer library hours. Right now, the
library has a problem with the theft of material. Articles are razored out of
journals, and, despite security precautions worthy of the Pentagon, those precious readings on the reserve shelf-readings that your very survival in certain
courses depends on-do disappear. Perhaps these problems would diminish if
heavily used or reserved materials were available extra hours each week.
The Ethical Appeal for the Proposal

In the first half of your proposal, when all the attention was focused on
a problem, you may have appealed to your audience's sense of what was
wrong. Now you may want to appeal to their sense of what is right. If
281
slavery is wrong, then freedom is right. If child abuse is wrong, then

fostering care is right. Again, if you think you can count on your audience's
immediate response to an ethical appeal, you simply make the appeal. But
if you cannot count on it, once again you must place your subject in a
category your audience will respond to immediately.
You can also argue that not only is the situation brought about by your
proposal ethically right, but that the person or institution that acts to bring
it about fulfills an ethical obligation. Because institutions have obligations
and people have duties, showing how action on your proposal fulfills such
a responsibility or a duty can be a strong ethical appeal. The passerby who
intervenes to prevent a mugging not only produces a result that is good,
but also lives up to the responsibility of a concerned citizen.
Our sample proposal makes an ethical appeal to the ideal definition of
a university, claiming that if the proposal is followed, the university will
be living up to its responsibilities.
Carved in stone over the door of the library are the words "A true university
is a collection of books." According to this definition, the library is the university. Of course a university is also an administration, a student body, and a
complex physical plant. But it fulfills its function as a holder and disperser of
knowledge more truly when it unlocks the library than when it sponsors a pep
rally.
EXERCISE
If you have done the exercises so far, you have written the first two parts
of a full proposal: the preliminary arguments and the specific thesis. Now
try your hand at supporting arguments. But do not overdo it. You will
almost certainly not need all three types of supporting arguments we have
just outlined. Choose the one or two that will be appropriate for the
audience you are keeping in mind.
FEASIBILITY: "IT C A N BE DONE"

If you are making a specific proposal, if you want a certain action taken,
if you want people to get out of their chairs, then you must convince them
"it can be done." Feasibility means workability, showing your audience
that you are not proposing ice palaces in the desert, making your own black
hole, or feeding hungry nations with fried earthworms. It is one thing to
282
dream up pie-in-the-sky proposals and quite another to argue that they

are actually doable. Arguing feasibility is often a matter of anticipating the
questions a skeptical reader is likely to ask. A specific proposal usually
requires detailed consideration of feasibility. The following sections show
how to answer the kinds of questions audiences usually have about feasibility.
Can We Afford It?

Action costs money, so it is not surprising that for most people feasibility
means economics. How fully you answer this most predictable of all questions, "How much?" depends on your proposal and audience. If you are
applying to the government for a research grant, you must submit an
itemized budget. If you propose that the School Board open the high
school in the evening for adult education, you show that tuition will offset
the increased operating costs (teachers' salaries, electricity, and janitor).
Even if you cannot predict costs down to the last penny, you should still
show readers that you have considered money by giving a generally correct
assurance: "We can afford it." "It won't cost too much." "It's not expensive."
And, of course, if you are actually proposing something that will save
more than it costs, make a big point of that as a good consequence. If your
proposal to recycle glass, wood chips, used motor oil, cocoa bean hulls, or
autumn leaves will create income where there was once only waste, that
is a benefit too great to be overlooked.
Does It Take Too Long?

People tend to be as thrifty of their time as of their money. They will resist
a proposal that takes too much time either to prepare or to perform. The
exercise routine of a ballet dancer may keep the body in perfect physical
shape, but if it takes eight hours and the body works in an office all day,
it is hardly feasible. And sometimes not the process but the goal of a
proposal can seem to take too long, in some eyes, to come to fruition. As
a society, for example, we are eager to open professions and influential
positions to women and minorities because doing so is fair. But we have
been impatient with solutions that ask us to wait fifteen years for improved education to work wonders on today's kindergartners.
You can try to answer the time question the same way you answered
the money question, with arguments that amount to assurances: "No, it
won't take too much time." "Anyone can spare ten minutes a day." "By
this time next week we'll have results." And of course if your proposal can
THE PROPOSAL.: ARGUING ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE DONE
283
actually save time, adding minutes to the day or hours to the week, you
have a strong selling point. Microwave ovens take seven minutes to cook
a potato, the computerized turnstiles in the Washington Metro process
passengers quickly, and the supersonic Concorde crosses the Atlantic in
about three hours. This kind of time saving has strong appeal for most
audiences.
Can We Get People To Do This?

"It's a fine idea," your reader says, "but how are you going to get people
to go along with you?" Human nature hangs back; it resists change, newness, progress, innovation, and disturbance of the status quo. If your
proposal involves getting people to move, to act, to change, you have to
convince your audience that you can get people moving. Let's imagine that
you are proposing to the managers of your company that the secretaries
be trained to use a multiple word processing, spreadsheet, and data base
program. You point out to them all the time that will eventually be saved
once the switchover is accomplished. Nevertheless, they want to know
how you will get the secretaries to commit themselves to the training
period for this demanding new procedure. You answer that the secretaries
should be eager to upgrade their skills for higher salaries, but any secretary
who refuses to go along will be transferred to the word processing pool.
Your audience is convinced when they see how you will convince those
who must act.
Suppose your proposal involves moving the general public or a large,
varied group of people to action? Such general appeals are common: The
governor asks Californians to conserve water; the Surgeon General campaigns against smoking; and doctors urge most of us to lose weight, shape
up, and eat wholesome food. Common sense tells us that we can never
convince everyone to stop smoking, drinking, overeating, or wasting water.
When defending your public proposal, you may have to concede that the
entire populace will not go along with it, but that a significant number will
respond when good and bad consequences, ethical rightness and wrongness are pointed out to them. We can imagine the Governor of California
defending a conservation appeal to advisers by arguing that though some
people will be too selfish to cut back on water consumption, most Californians will respond to an appeal to the public good if they can see that it
is also in their self-interest.
The question "Can we get people to do it?" can have a second meaning.
In the examples above, it means "Can we motivate them?" It can also mean
"Do we have the personnel? Can we find them? Can we hire them?" You
may feel like the playwright who has a great role for an elderly woman
who can tap-dance and sing opera, but can the part be filled? No doubt
284
the originators of the manned space flight program must have defended the
feasibility of finding astronaut candidates who combined technical training, stable personalities, perfect physical condition, and the daredevil recklessness of test pilots. When money is not an object, personnel may be
easier to find or train, but in more ordinary situations, the question
becomes "Can we get the people at our price?"
Trade-offs
In any particular proposal a separate, satisfactory answer to each of the
above questions may not be possible. Your answer to one of the questions
might dismay your audience: Your proposal will be expensive, take time,
and meet with great resistance. How do you get around such stumbling
blocks? Imagine how an excellent salesperson would get someone to buy
a car that leaks oil. The seller admits it does leak a little oil, but points out
its rust-free body, its custom upholstery, and its low mileage. In other
words, an arguer whose proposal has problems engages in trade-offs. You
persuade your audience to accept the defect in your proposal because of
its greater overall benefits. Yes, canning your own vegetables takes time,
but it saves money; and yes, frozen spinach souffle is expensive, but
convenience foods save time in the kitchen. Yes, your plan to convert the
old train station into a recreation center will take hours of volunteer work,
but once they see the benefits, enough townspeople will turn out to help.
How Can We Do It?

Even if you have the time, money, and people, your audience may still
withhold assent until you show them exactly how your proposal will be
accomplished. The end looks great, but far off. Your audience asks, "What
steps, what parts, what processes must we go through to get there?" You
can anticipate such predictable questions by going into the details of your
proposal in an orderly, sequential fashion. Just showing your audience that
you have thought your proposal through, that you have a fully workedout plan in mind, is in itself persuasive.
Suppose you send a letter to the parents of nursery-school children in
your town, proposing piano, violin, and cello lessons for three- and fouryear-olds. Time, money, teachers, and equipment are all available. But you
have to persuade the parents that teaching such tiny children to play an
instrument is possible. The only way to do it is to explain the process, the
sequential teaching method you will use. First, the children learn basic
rhythms, which they then combine into longer patterns. Next, they are
introduced to the instrument, and finally they put all their skills together
285
into a simple song like "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star." Once they've mastered one song, they are taught another that recombines the same elements
and introduces some new ones. In this way the children build up a repertoire of songs. When parents can see the steps for bringing a four-year-old
from clapping to mastering a song, they are more likely to be convinced
to the point of enrolling their children. (We have just described the famous
Suzuki method of teaching children violin, cello, or piano.)
What's the First Step?

Your audience can acknowledge your proposal's merit, agree that it is
feasible, and understand the steps to bring it about, yet still be unmoved
to action because they do not clearly see the first step to take. You cannot
overcome human inertia, even when your audience is willing to act, without very precise instructions for an initial action. Without specific guidance
into that first step, their commitment will fade away. You may have filled
your nursery-school parents' heads with visions of little Jessica as the next
Heifitz or Rubinstein, but unless you specify the first organizational meeting for next Thursday night at 8:00 at the church, the visions will evaporate.
Not only should the first move be clear, it should also be easy. Wise
businessmen know this when they send you a post-paid addressed card as
a first step in taking action on their ads; all you have to do is check the
appropriate box, drop it in the mail, and in three weeks a crew arrives to
dig up your back yard and put in a swimming pool. That first step was
so easy.
Has It Been Done Before?

One of the most convincing ways to show that something can be done is
to show that it has been done. If your proposal has been tried elsewhere
and worked successfully, you have a case history of its feasibility to bring
in as support, an analogy to predict its workability. Your main challenge
will be to show that "elsewhere" is similar to "here" in all essential ways.
If another community the same size mounted a successful antivandalism
campaign, if a museum in another city put in a "living science" exhibit,
if another supermarket installed a computerized check-out system, then
why not your community, your museum, your supermarket? This appeal
is even stronger when you have more time, more money, or better facilities
than your model.
Our continuing sample proposal argues for the feasibility of opening the
286 * WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT?
library o n weekends. T h i s part of t h e proposal is aimed at t h e administrators w h o could act o n it.

According to the head librarian, Dr. Murray, a skeleton staff of ten or twelve
could run the library on Friday or Saturday nights. The university would have
no trouble hiring student help for most of these positions. Students work for
the minimum wage, and many are available and even eager to work at odd
hours; those contributing to their own financial support would gladly trade the
luxury of weekend socializing for a chance to earn extra money. In fact, right
now, the Student Employment Office has several hundred more names on file
than it has jobs to give out. And certainly working in the library will be more
attractive to many people than raking leaves or baby sitting or moving pianos
Only two or three professional librarians would be needed to supervise, answer
questions in the reference room, and take care of documents. Microfilms, periodicals, and the reserve reading room could be staffed by students. None of the
special services like inter-library loan would have to be available; they are
always closed on week nights anyway.
Of course even a skeleton staff does not work for free, and it costs something
to heat and light the building. The staff and maintenance could bring the cost
of keeping the library open up to $600 a night, $1,200 a weekend, or $12,000
a ten-week term. That sounds like a lot of money to spend on a service that will
probably be used by only a few hundred students at any one time. But according
to last year's Annual Fiscal Report, published by the Board of Trustees, maintaining the university's recreational facilities on weekends costs considerably
more than $600 a day, yet the heated swimming pool, the lighted tennis courts,
the ice-skating rink, and the bowling alleys with automatic pinsetters, all exs weekend night.
pensive luxuries, are used by only a few hundred s t ~ d e n t any
Even if the university insisted on transferring the cost of the extra library hours
to the students, tuition would have to rise by only $1.00 per student per year
The chance of two extra evenings in the library is a bargain at that price.
Surely our university, one of the largest state universities in the country. can
bring together the planning and money and personnel for this project. After all,
comparable universities like Mammoth State, Gargantuan Polytech, and Northeast Enormous all open their libraries Friday and Saturday nights. Even little
Old Diminutive College, sixty miles away, keeps its collection of 100,000 books
available on weekend evenings with the help of two part-time librarians.
As a first step for our school, the administration could open the library for
two weekends three or four weeks into the next term. That way, they could
discover whether or not there is sufficient demand to warrant the extra hours.
If fewer than a hundred students appear, there would be no point in continuing
the experiment. But I believe that at that point in the term, with work piling
up, many of us-hundreds I imagine-would find the library a welcome refuge.
Anticipating Difficult Questions

A n y o n e w h o makes plans for other people, a n d that is exactly w h a t y o u
d o w h e n y o u m a k e a proposal, should anticipate some hostile questions:
287
"Who asked you?" "What business is it of yours?" "Who are you working
for?" But if you know what to expect from your audience, you can prevent
hostile questions from forming in their minds. Some of the techniques used
to forestall such questions are the accommodation tactics that work with
all arguments (see Chapter 15), but here we will look at a few objections
that proposal makers are particularly vulnerable to.
If Your Idea Is So Good, Why Hasn't Anyone

Done It Before?
This question has two roots. First, it can come from a suspicion that you
have overlooked something that has kept others from your solution. In
other words, no one else has seriously proposed your idea before because
they have seen the folly of it. No one is building Corvairs these days, or
transmuting base metals into gold, or proposing one simple cure for everything from the common cold to cancer. If your proposal has never been
tried or even suggested before, the best defense against suspicion is a very
thorough feasibility section, showing that you have not overlooked anything vital.
Second, this question may reflect honest puzzlement as to why such a
good solution never occurred to anyone else working on the problem. You
may want to answer, "Because no one else was smart enough to think of
it before." But that statement is too boastful and blunt. A better defense
here could take one of the following forms:
New Circumstances
You may argue that the situation has changed so that now a solution like
yours is possible. For example, your cure for inflation may work only when
it goes over 10 percent; when inflation is that serious, public motivation
will work for you.
A Blocking Cause Removed

One special new circumstance is the disappearance of something that had
previously prevented a solution to a problem. The old boss has retired, so
now you can finally propose revamping the outdated procedures of the
complaint department. Or now that the union is no longer opposed to
computerized check-outs, you can propose installing a new system in your
store. O r now that the old bridge has rotted away, you can think of
building a safe new one.
288
New Knowledge
You can argue that a new technology, a new approach, a new technique
is now available to tackle a previously insoluble problem. Computer technology has been our number-one new solver of problems everywhere from
the supermarket to outer space. Advances in medical technology, like the
CAT scanner, new management techniques such as MBO (Management
by Objectives), the copying machine, the laser, and polyurethane rollerskate wheels have inspired solutions never before possible. The appeal to
new knowledge may well be your strongest defense against impertinent
objections.
Not Really a New Idea

It may be possible for you to forestall the lethal question by attacking it
head on. You may argue that your proposal is not really a new, harebrained
idea at all. It's an old idea applied in a new way, or one that was proposed
before but never had a fair hearing. Anything that gives your proposal a
history can give it authority. For example, your proposal to use bean
derivatives as a protein source to improve school lunches may not be as
far-fetched as it sounds. The supermarkets already sell hamburgers enriched with soy protein, and Japanese and Chinese cuisines feature bean
curd.
What's in It for You?

That is a very impolite question, but even people who don't ask it might
think it. The motives of do-gooders are always suspect. If no one has
authorized you to come up with a proposal, if the problem is not in your
domain of responsibility, if you apparently have nothing to gain, then
people will wonder why you went to all the trouble. They will suspect that
you are going to profit in some hidden way-a job for your brother-in-law,
a contract for your construction firm, a future favor from the candidate you
are supporting.
How do you forestall this suspicion? First, if you are going to benefit,
you should admit it, as long as what benefits you helps others as well.
Although you could not effectively support a proposal that would benefit
only yourself, people accept honest and open self-interest. Benjamin
Franklin's many proposals for Philadelphia provide us with models of
what has been called "enlightened self-interest" in action. The free public
library he proposed certainly was in Franklin's interest; he was an avid
reader and found it hard to get books in colonial America. But the public
library also benefited everyone else. So did his fire company, bifocals,
THE PROPOSAL: ARGUING ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE DONE = 289
stove, plan for a militia, lightning rod, the American Philosophical Society,
and the University of Pennsylvania.
What if there really is nothing in it for you? Say you are a graduating
senior proposing an improvement in a high school you will never attend
again, or a math student who got an A in calculus suggesting that the
course's multiple-choice tests be replaced by "show-all-work" exams. In
situations like these, the benefits of your proposal are for others, not for
you. Should you point out what a good person you are? You may be but
no one wants to hear about it; it is best not to include a long passage in
praise of your own unselfishness.
Yet some justification is necessary when you have been neither authorized to make a proposal nor led to it naturally by self-interest. Most
audiences will accept proposal making from certain ethical motives. The
graduating senior could bring up school loyalty as a motive, since most
people are attached to the schools they attended and want to see them
prosper. The math student could not convincingly claim loyalty to the
math department, but could identify with the student body, which will
benefit from the proposal. And both the graduating senior and the math
student can boost their credibility by identifying their unique positions as
"one who has been through it all and lived to testify." It is as though they
looked around and said, "No one else is in a better position to make this
proposal than I am, so I do it."
What's Wrong with the Other Proposal?

Unless you are the only one making a proposal, you are in competition
with others, and in a competition it is unwise to ignore the existence of
your opponents. Better to acknowledge them and take them on, to be
aware of the other proposals and refute them where logically possible.
Suppose your county is considering what to do with abandoned railway
tunnels. Your rival has proposed that they be turned into mausoleums;
bodies can be deposited behind the large paving bricks, which can then be
replaced and suitably inscribed. You, on the other hand, have come up
with the brilliant idea of leasing the cool, damp tunnels to mushroom
producers. When you present your proposal before the county commissioners, you may want to point out that while your rival's idea is certainly
original, you wonder how many folk will want to bury their loved ones
in an abandoned railway tunnel. (By the way, mushrooms are grown in
abandoned railway tunnels in Pennsylvania.)
Of course, an idea like tunnel mausoleums is easy to ridicule; you are
far more likely to have to defend your proposal against others that are not
very different and that seem on the surface just as plausible as yours. If
you find yourself working in a large corporation or research institution,
290
WHAT SHOULD WE D O ABOUT IT?
you may have to evaluate competing proposals. Here is where your knowledge of the parts of the full proposal will be useful. By comparing part to
part you can uncover your competitor's deficiencies-weak ethical appeal,
unforeseen consequences, poor feasibility.
Our library argument concludes by forestalling some objections:
I have heard the argument that opening the library on weekend nights is
dangerous; women walking home at midnight are risking attack. If that's so,
then it's true from Sunday through Thursday nights as well when the library
is open. The university does not close the library out of concern for student
safety those nights. Women who are out at that hour have learned to stay in
groups on lighted walkways. In fact, weekend nights are probably even less
dangerous than week nights because more people and more police are around.
My proposal is not really a new idea. The senior reference librarian told me
that up until six years ago the library was open till twelve every Friday and
Saturday night. Then six years ago, when the budget was being trimmed everywhere, the library hours were cut back as a temporary economy; full service was
never resumed even though the library's operating budget was restored. Yet
today, six years later, we are still living with a short-term economy. Maybe that
economy is too expensive when we consider that the percentage of students
who finish four years here has dropped from 71 percent to 54 percent. Perhaps
if the university improved the academic environment, more students would
make it through four years.
HOW PROPOSALS CAN GO WRONG

Since proposals are made up of arguments about the nature of things and
arguments about causes, often combined in evaluations, they can go wrong
in all the ways discussed in the three preceding sections. Three spots,
however, are particularly vulnerable in proposal arguments whose distinctive feature is actually encouraging an audience to do something. First, an
audience unconvinced that a situation is a problem cannot be moved to act;
they perceive neither bad consequences nor ethical wrongness in a situation and therefore will not vote or contribute money or take on a committee assignment or whatever. Or an audience may indeed recognize the
problem, but find it quite tolerable, especially if it is an old familiar problem: "It is a bit hard on pedestrians, but we've lived without sidewalks here
for thirty years." "We'd like to keep every student we admit, but some
always drop out." "A few guys get shaken up now and then, but we have
always played without helmets." If you cannot give your audience that
first push into the water, they will not swim with your proposal.
Second, if you have competition from other proposals, your argument
must refute in order to win. Oddly enough, an easy time with the "we have
. 291
a problem" section may spell trouble from rival proposals. What everyone
perceives as a problem, many try to solve, and you cannot hope to attract
an investment of resources in your solution unless you carefully establish
its superiority. If only one road can be built from Lhasa to Kathmandu,
then it should pass your magnificent roadside stand and bypass your rival's
diner.
Third, the most vulnerable part of a specific proposal argument is usually its feasibility section, the section that explains exactly how the proposal will come about in the real world. Readers have a right to expect a
proposal arguer to hold out a reachable goal and show a plausible first step.
So imagine yourself answering questions about money, time, and the
availability of resources like the following: "Granting the desirability of
the goal, can we expect the university to abolish grades before the end of
the term?" or "Yes, it would be nice if Centreville had a domed stadium
like Houston, but can a town of 30,000 afford a $100 million project?" or
"If our school district can hire only one person, is it likely we can find a
football coach who can also teach sewing?"
FOR YOU TO ANALYZE

Examine the following proposal arguments. Each of them modifies the full
proposal outline by eliminating or rearranging some parts. Identify the
parts and explain why the selection or arrangement works or does not
work.
I propose an end to neckties! They are uncomfortable, unnatural, and a
superficial pretense to importance. Males should not have to suffer this archaic
hang-up so their peers will approve their "well dressed" look. Women dress as
they please. I think men should too.
-Ray
"Anti-Necktie" Giger
PUT THIAMINE IN LIQUOR

Brandon Centerwall
The man wanders from ward to ward, unable to remember where he is. A
sign is taped on the back of his hospital robe:
M y name is Green
I am probably lost
Please return me to Ward 6W
Such signs are sometimes useful to help the elderly senile. Mr. Green is 40
292
years old. He has a disease called Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome. It could have

been prevented.
Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome is the partial destruction of the brain resulting from a lack of thiamine (vitamin B-1). It usually occurs among the severely
malnourished. During World War 11, an epidemic of Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome broke out at the Singapore prisoner-of-war camp, killing 21 soldiers.
Small amounts of thiamine in their diet could have saved them.
Like Mr. Green (this is not his real name), most victims of this disease in the
United States today are severe alcoholics who don't eat nutritious food. They
frequently die of the disease. If they don't, many end up in nursing homes
because of brain damage.
The disease can begin over a period of weeks. Ocular muscles become weak
or paralyzed. The sense of balance is affected, sometimes so badly that it is
impossible to walk. Amnesia and general confusion take over. Finally, the
victim may lapse into a coma and die.
Treatment with thiamine reverses most of the syndrome, but the ability to
remember events as they happen is often lost forever.
Yet the disease can be prevented-simply by adding thiamine to all liquor,
wine and beer.
The idea is not new. After the first synthesis of thiamine in 1936, prevention
on a mass scale became possible. Soon it was publicly advocated that thiamine
be added to alcoholic beverages to prevent the thiamine-deficiency diseases of
alcoholics.
By 1940, the alcoholic-beverage industry was experimentally adding thiamine to its products. Seagram & Sons found it was stable in their whiskey. The
California Wine Institute found it was stable in their wines. Anheuser-Busch
found it was stable in their beer.
Nor were the drug companies idle. Both Abbott Laboratories and SmithDorsey Company piloted thiamine-fortified wines.
But a chill descended. By law, all food additives must be listed on the label.
In 1940, a Federal ruling prohibited listing the vitamin content of alcoholic
beverages on the label as this would imply that drinking alcohol is healthy-an
improper inducement; thus, added vitamins cannot be listed on the label. However, this would violate the first law concerning food additives in general:
Therefore, vitamins cannot be added to alcoholic beverages. The American
Medical Association declared the drug company wines "unacceptable" for similar reasons. With these barriers, interest in fortification waned.
Recent research that I conducted shows that not only would adding thiamine
to alcoholic beverages save lives and minds but also it would actually save
public money as well.
Since the public pays for the care of many alcoholics suffering from this
disease, adding thiamine would save us millions of dollars. Each dollar's worth
of thiamine, or one of its derivatives, added would save up to $7 in nursinghome costs-a good return on an investment.
Technical issues remain to be solved. It is already known that thiamine is
sufficiently stable in alcoholic beverages, but how does it taste? When thiamine
is added to whiskey, wine and beer in the proposed concentrations, it has been
observed that there is little or no effect on flavor. However, these are only the
. 293
anecdotal observations of a few individuals; more formal taste tests will be

undertaken.
Finally, to obtain the approval of the Food and Drug Administration, routine
screening studies must be performed to make absolutely certain that the combination will not give rise to any noxious substances.
O n the legal front, the 1940 ruling should be changed to permit the addition
of vitamins to alcoholic beverages without listing them on the label.
Of course, the ideal way to prevent Wernicke-KorsakoH syndrome is to
prevent alcoholism.
Indeed, during Prohibition rates of Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome dropped
by 90 percent. Considering the terrible destruction it causes, our main effort
should be against alcoholism.
Purists will ask, "So why prevent this rare disease in alcoholics when we
should be preventing alcoholism?" To demand fair trials for criminals is not to
condone crime. To demand proper health care for alcoholics is not to condone
alcoholism. Apart from economic gains, there is a moral imperative.
SAMPLE ANALYSIS
The proposal thesis of this article, which appeared in a large-circulation

newspaper aimed at the general public, is a specific one, requiring a rather
full argument. The preliminaries are, however, condensed, though the
argument does open with the usual demonstration of a problem. The
reader is given a single, pathetic example of a forty-year-old man wandering in senility. Because the loss of a human being to such premature mental
decay is so evidently a bad consequence, so obviously against the ethical
values of almost any audience, the author, Brandon Centerwall, need not
fill in these potential sections in the full proposal outline. He can and does
go right to causal analysis.
The wandering man has Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, whose immediate cause is brain destruction due to thiamine deficiency; an example
from the past supports this causal connection, an example that adds to the
pathos associated with the disease. The cause of such a deficiency in these
days of food additives and vitamin consciousness is inadequate diet due
to alcoholism. Alcoholism is thus a remote cause of Wernicke-Korsakoff
syndrome in the following chain: Alcoholism -+ deficient diet -+ thiamine
Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome. This chain
deprivation -+ brain damage ,
could be cut at its lethal end and the causal process reversed by putting
thiamine in the one form of sustenance alcoholics do take. Thus the proposal that comes in paragraph 7.
Since Mr. Centerwall's proposal is so simple, he feels compelled to
answer the unspoken question "If your idea is so good why hasn't anyone
thought of it before?" by admitting that it is not new; it has been proposed
ever since thiamine was first artificially synthesized. In giving evidence of
this early advocacy, the author also gives evidence of the feasibility of his
294
scheme: Thiamine has proved stable in whiskey, wine, and beer. His proposal can be done because it has been done.
A blocking cause, however, currently prevents thiamine additives in
alcohol. The government both requires that all food additives be listed on
labels and specifically prohibits labeling alcoholic beverages as vitamin
fortified. Paragraph 16 refers to the removal of this blocking cause as the
first step required to facilitate the author's proposal.
Mr. Centerwall makes a further strong supporting argument for his
proposal when he asserts that it could save money as well as prevent a
deplorable disease; if the disease were eliminated, as it so easily could be,
taxpayers would no longer have to support the institutionalized senile like
Mr. Green. Creating himself as an authority (in his only use of "I"), Mr.
Centerwall claims that the savings will be sevenfold on any investment in
his proposal. In paragraphs 14 and 15, Mr. Centerwall shows moderation
by conceding the need for further research into the effects of thiamine
additives on taste and their long-;erm stability in alcoholic beverages.
These concessions do not really weaken his argument; rather, they show
his reasonableness.
. Mr. Centerwall did not have to point out the ethical wrongness or
undesirable consequences of the problem he demonstrates in his preliminary arguments, but in the conclusion he attempts to forestall an ethical
objection to his proposal. Rather than putting this objection into the mind
of his reader, he invents a character, "the purist," who has ethical reservations. The purist would argue that the greater evil, alcoholism itself, should
receive attention rather than a very rare disease that strikes a few alcoholics. The answer to this objection (a bit of a straw man as he has worded
it) is self-evident: To prevent Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome in a few is
not to ignore or even excuse alcoholism.
CONTINUING ED FOR 1OCKS

Steve Robinson
All across the country freshly minted college graduates are setting out in
search of jobs. Unfortunately, many of their classmates-those who spent four
or five years as scholarship athletes-are making the search at a distinct disadvantage. About 1%of them, the outstanding athletes, will play their sports
professionally; the other 99% are job hunting, and more than half of those who
played at the Division I level are brandishing only their varsity letters, not
diplomas.
With the demands placed upon Division I football and basketball players,
it's a wonder that they have time to master their playbooks, much less to study
diligently enough to graduate. In fact, in the lower divisions, in which sports
are more integrated into other aspects of college life, athletes tend to perform
. 295
better academically than the student body as a whole. But playing for a big-time
athletic power is a full-time job. As a result, the contract between athlete and
school is shamefully one-sided. In return for four (or five, if the athlete has been
redshirted) years of attending practices, lifting weights, watching films and, oh
yes, playing games, the athlete is given the opportunity to receive a college
education. But it doesn't always work out very well. While the university gets
its 250 pounds of flesh, the athlete is often not much better prepared for a career
than he was after high school.
In an era in which a bachelor's degree usually is required even for entry-level
jobs, the contract needs to be rewritten. If an athlete upholds his end of the
bargain-that is, if he practices and plays for four years-he ought to be entitled
to work toward his degree at the university's expense for as long as it takes him
to get it. This is not to encourage shirkers; the scholarship would remain in force
only as long as the former varsity athlete has a declared major and is working
toward a degree.
But if the athlete could spare only three nights a week away from a job, and
therefore had to attend class for another four years to earn a degree, so be it.
And what if our student-athlete played his ball at Oklahoma but found himself
living in Florida? He should be allowed to complete his education in a comparable academic program at a school near his home, with the tuition paid for by
Oklahoma. We're talking only tuition here, not room and board.
Sounds like a lot for schools to cope with, especially in these days of rising
costs. All the more reason why the proposed contract makes sense. If colleges
shudder at the thought of footing the bill for their former athletes for years on
end, then let them educate their athletes properly the first time around, while
they are full-time students.
True, the new contract would have a varied impact on NCAA member
schools. The graduation rate for athletes now ranges from almost nil at some
schools to 100% for Duke basketball players, every one of whom, since 1975,
has earned a degree.
What are the perils in this plan? None that are insurmountable. To prevent
somebody from goofing off during his playing years, knowing that his education
would be paid for indefinitely, I propose that an athlete must have studied hard
enough to have remained academically eligible during his athletic career. And
what if a fellow takes a shine to the halls of academia and prolongs his education
deliberately? Highly unlikely. Our scholar still has to make a living after his
eligibility runs out, and therefore has every reason to hustle toward his degree
and a better job.
Will universities respond to the new pact by automatically bestowing degrees upon athletes who have completed their tenure on the field or the court?
Again, not likely. Even schools that are not known for academic excellence
would be loath to further cheapen their reputations and diminish the value of
their degrees by dispensing them like candy.
O n a small scale, a consortium of 31 colleges and universities organized by
Richard Lapchick, director of Northeastern University's Center for the Study of
Sport in Society, has already agreed to finance former scholarship athletes who
wish to return to the campus to earn their degrees. In exchange the athletes
participate in outreach programs promoting education. The program is in its
296
infancy, and not all of the schools play Division I basketball or football, but the
addition last month of Penn State to the group represents an enormous vote of
confidence.
Why should universities finance the education of former athletes? Simple,
says Lapchick. As the public becomes more aware of scandals and abuses in
college sports, schools become increasingly sensitive about their credibility.
According to Lapchick, the schools in the Northeastern consortium "saw a
problem and wanted to be part of the solution." The NCAA should endorse
those good intentions by making open-ended scholarships mandatory.
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT? REAL ENOUGH,

A fierce drought is shriveling crops from Texas to North Dakota and has
shrunk the Mississippi to its lowest levels on record. Dry years are part of
nature's cycle. Still, it's time to take seriously another possible influence-the
warming of the atmosphere by waste gases from a century of industrial activity.
Whether or not the feared greenhouse effect is real, there are several preventive
measures worth taking in their own right.
The greenhouse theory holds that certain waste gases let in sunlight but trap
heat, which otherwise would escape into space. Carbon dioxide has been steadily building up through the burning of coal and oil-and because forests, which
absorb the gas, are fast being destroyed. There is no clear proof that the gases
have yet begun to warm the atmosphere. But there's circumstantial evidence,
and some experts think it is getting stronger.
For example, four of the last eight years-1980,1981,1983 and 1987-have
been the warmest since measurements of global surface temperatures began a
century ago, and 1988 may be another record hot year. Still, there have been
hot spells before, followed by a cooling.
According to computer simulations of the world's climate, there should be
more rain in a greenhouse-heated globe. The rain falls in different places: more
at the poles and the equator, less in the mid-latitudes. The drought in the
Middle West falls in with these projections. But it stops far short of proving that
the greenhouse effect has begun. "As far as we can tell, this is a tough summer
well within the normal range of variability," says Donald Gilman, the Weather
Service's long-range forecaster.
That's the nub of the problem: It's hard to identify a small, gradual sign of
global warming amid wide natural fluctuations in climate. Even over the long
term, the evidence is merely indicative. The world has warmed half a degree
centigrade over the last century. But the warming is less than some computer
models predict, forcing defenders of the greenhouse theory to argue that the
extra heat is disappearing into the oceans.
With the greenhouse effect still uncertain, why take preventive steps, especially since the main one, burning less coal, would be enormously expensive?
One answer is that it may take years to acquire positive proof of greenhouseinduced climate change, and the longer society waits, the larger a warming it
will have to adapt to if the greenhouse theory turns out to be valid. Even a small
297
warming could produce violent changes in climate. At worst, the Gulf Stream
might shift course, failing to warm Europe. Sea level could rise 20 feet if the
West Antarctic Ice Cap melts, flooding coastal cities from New York to New
Orleans.
Several measures to slow the greenhouse warming are worth taking for other
reasons:
Cut production of freons, chemicals used as solvents and refrigerants. Important greenhouse gases, they destroy the life-protecting ozone layer.
Protect tropical forests, which not only absorb carbon dioxide but also nourish a rich variety of animal and plant life.
Encourage conservation of energy and use of natural gas, which produces half
as much carbon dioxide as does coal.
Develop cheaper, safer nuclear power; nuclear plants produce no carbon
dioxide or acid rain.
Many climatologists expect that the greenhouse theory will eventually prove
true, but fear to issue alarmist warnings ahead of time. Their caution is justified.
But there's an ample case for taking these initial preventive measures when the
cost of such insurance is so low and the discomforts of abrupt climate change,
as the drought demonstrates, so high.
THE ONL Y FAIR WAY FOR ELITE COLLEGES TO CHOOSE

THEIR FRESHMAN CLASSES IS BY RANDOM SELECTION
James W. Jump
Every spring, thousands of high-school seniors across the country anxiously
watch the mail for a letter from the admission office of one or more of the
so-called selective colleges and universities, the contents of which will profoundly affect the course of the recipient's life. The fortunate minority receive
a thick letter of acceptance, opening the door to an exclusive club and all the
privileges of membership. The rest receive a thin letter of rejection and, along
with it, a lesson in the disappointments of adulthood.
It can be a hard lesson to swallow. As a college-admission counselor at a high
school I spend a lot of time trying to console talented young people who have
suddenly discovered, after four years of outstanding performance in their school
work and extracurricular activities, that they are not good enough. I try to
persuade them not to take the rejection personally, to convince them that they
are simply victims of a process that is essentially unfair. To understand that,
they have to know about how college admission works and what it is that makes
an institution "selective."
For all colleges, I tell them, admission is first and foremost a numbers game.
Each institution seeks to enroll a certain number of freshmen. To reach that goal,
admission offices must send out more acceptances than there are places, since
298
not every accepted applicant will enroll. For the selective colleges the difference
between the two numbers is relatively small.
An institution is defined as "selective" if qualified applicants always outnumber the spaces it has available and it routinely has to reject some candidates
who fully meet its standards for admission. The competition for admission to
the 50 or so truly selective institutions in this country is intense; a handful of
those colleges admit fewer than a quarter of the students who apply.
Most applicants for admission at selective institutions are not just qualified;
they are superbly qualified, with high-school grades and Scholastic Aptitude
Test scores at the top of the scale. In 1982, Princeton accepted only one-third
of the high-school valedictorians who applied, and barely half of the applicants
with S.A.T. scores in the 750-800 range. In 1984, the mean score on the verbal
section of the S.A.T. for the 2,492 students accepted at Georgetown was 628.
Last year, Stanford turned down 60 per cent of the applicants who had all A's
on their high-school transcripts, and 70 per cent of those whose S.A.T. scores
were above 700.
To choose a freshman class from a large group of exceptional applicants,
admission committees must subject them all to rigorous and exhaustive scrutiny. At most selective colleges, anywhere from two to five people read each
application and evaluate the candidate's grades, courses, activities, test scores,
essays, and recommendations. Being a superb student isn't enough. Personal
qualities are also considered, and applicants are given both academic and nonacademic ratings.
In putting together a class, the committee gives major consideration to "diversity," not only to assure students a broad educational experience but also to
achieve other goals, ranging from increasing minority enrollment to satisfying
the demands of alumni. No one can deny that the process is thorough, but is
it fair? The huge gap between the number of highly qualified applicants and the
spaces available forces admission committees to make fine (and usually subjective) distinctions among applicants with almost identical credentials.
It is part of admissions mythology that individual merit is the yardstick by
which candidates are judged. The problem is that little agreement exists on what
constitutes merit, how it can be measured, or how to compare applicants of
diverse background and interests. The admission process should be an exercise
in just distribution, in finding a fair means of allocating a scarce resourceplaces at an elite institution-among
too many qualified candidates.
To be fair, selection must be based on clearly defined objectives and relevant,
easily measured criteria, and the judges must accord due process and equal
consideration to each applicant. By those standards, the process as presently
conducted is far from fair-institutions rarely, if ever, spell out their objectives;
special preference is customarily given to certain candidates; and the judgments
underlying admission decisions are mostly subjective and arbitrary.
Is the purpose of the process to identify and select the applicants most likely
to succeed academically, or those most likely to benefit from the educational
opportunity? Or is it simply to reward past performance? The answer is None
of the above. The real purpose is to admit the candidates who can best help a
particular institution achieve the goals (which in most cases are more political
than educational) hidden behind the concept of diversity. To reach those goals,
299
the committee may give candidates in certain categories special preference, with
the effect that those candidates compete only among themselves rather than
with all applicants. For example, if the institution's goal is a champion football
team, and a fullback is the missing link, the fullbacks will compete for admission
only against other fullbacks. If the goal is to maintain balanced proportions of
men and women in the student body, then candidates of the sex that predominates will find it more difficult than the rest to gain admission. If the goal is to
increase the number of students from certain minority groups, then applicants
from those groups will have the edge. And because all institutions have fundraising goals, children of alumni and of the rich and famous will usually get
preference.
Diversity is clearly a laudable objective, particularly given the history of
minorities' limited access to higher education, but should it be achieved at the
expense of fair, equal consideration for all applicants? In the name of diversity,
the likes of Brooke Shields, Patrick Ewing, and the Kennedy kids get the chance
to receive their education at elite universities, while other talented young people, with equal or superior credentials, do not.
The way in which selective colleges guarantee the diverse make-up of their
entering classes is only one of the factors compromising the fairness of the
process. Another is the unlimited discretion the colleges exercise in deciding
whom to admit. Obviously, the more subjective and arbitrary the decision, the
less fair it is.
One reason for such subjectivity is that grades and test scores, the objective
measurements most commonly used to predict success in college, are of little use
in making close distinctions among the superior students who apply to selective
institutions. Their grades and test scores predict success for all of them. Unfortunately, not all can be admitted, and, because the differences are statistically
insignificant, it is impossible to predict which applicants will be most successful.
Another reason is the committees' lack of accountability. Selective colleges
have far more qualified applicants than they can admit. Without objective
information with which to make fine distinctions, the committee is free to
decide arbitrarily. It has the luxury of knowing it will choose a superb freshman
class, no matter how it decides. The undeniable fact that there are always too
many applicaqts for too few places provides immunity from criticism of its
choices.
The excess of qualified candidates also distorts the way in which applications
are evaluated. Because many well-qualified applicants must be turned down,
admission committees are put in the position of looking not for reasons to admit
but rather for reasons to exclude. Numbers are of overriding importance. Every
year, quite a few applicants on the accepted list end up being cut, because of
concern that more on the list will enroll than there is room for. They are rejected
at the last minute, never knowing how close they came to getting in.
The only fair way to choose a freshman class from among too many qualified
applicants is by some type of random selection. One way would be to have the
qualified applicants draw lots. Another would be to accept candidates when
their credentials are complete and they are judged qualified, until the class is
full. A third, which an admission officer of my acquaintance has long recom-
300
mended, would be to put every qualified applicant on a "waiting list" and admit
the ones who respond first.
Random selection has several clear advantages. It would guarantee equal
consideration, and it would make rejection easier to take, since not getting in
would be due to bad luck rather than to personal failure. It would also be easier
on admission committees. Not only would it save a great deal of the time and
money currently spent splitting hairs to select a freshman class, but it would also
restore the committees to their proper function of determining who is qualified,
rather than who among the qualified should be admitted.
Despite the advantages, however, random selection is probably not an idea
whose time has come. The benefit to selective colleges of being able to use
discretion in choos:ng a freshman class is too great. Also, many admission
professionals actually believe it's possible to make informed choices among
equally qualified candidates and, ironically, so do some students.
It can be argued, of course, that admission to a selective college has nothing
to do with just distribution, because higher education is not a scarce resource.
There are over 3,000 colleges and universities in the United States, the argument
goes, and no one who wants a higher education is denied the opportunity to get
it. That being the case, selective colleges, particularly those that are privately
owned, should be free to admit whomever they wish.
Such reasoning ignores the fact that the elite institutions occupy a special
place in American society. Therefore, they have a special obligation to uphold
the national ideals of fairness, equality of opportunity, and due process in
allotting the coveted places in their freshman classes. Unless they do so by
instituting a means for just distribution of places, the qualified candidates who
get thin envelopes will have to continue either to accept the rejection as an
authoritative judgment of their worth (and perhaps allow it to ruin their lives)
or take it as a challenge to go out and prove through their accomplishments that
the admission committees blew it.
FOR YOU TO WRITE

No one makes specific proposals unless in a position to do so. Therefore,
rather than suggesting theses in various areas of knowledge, we offer roles
you, as a proposal maker, might plausibly assume: student, citizen, consumer, employee, fan, and viewer. Under each role we have suggested very
specific topics, which may meet your interests or may stimulate you to
think of others. Each role and topic also suggest several possible audiences.
Of course, we cannot anticipate every stance you might legitimately assume, so in thinking of proposal topics, consider other roles (such as club
member, church-goer, hospital patient, or member of an organization) and
potential audiences.
. 301
The proposal maker as student.

1. Tuition at state universities should be free to state residents.
2. Physical education courses should be graded on effort rather than performance.

3. Campus police should not carry guns.
4. The dorm meal plan should be changed so that students pay only for what
they eat.
5. No lecture classes should have more than fifty students.
6 . Fall semester should start after Labor Day.
7. The math department should give show-all-work rather than multiplechoice exams.
8. Twenty percent of the desks in every classroom and lecture hall should be
left-handed and not in the back row.
9. The sexist institution of Homecoming Queen should be abolished, or we
should have a Homecoming King too.
10. Students should be able to regulate the heat in their own dorm rooms.
11. No classes should be held on Saturday.
12. Outside doors to dormitories should be locked and residents issued
keys.
13. All colleges should have a twelve-credit foreign language requirement toward graduation.
14. Teaching assistants who are nonnative speakers should pass a spokenlanguage competency test.
The proposal maker as citizen of a local, state, or national community.

1. The state should retest all drivers under sixty-five every ten years and all
drivers over sixty-five every three years.
2. Our national anthem should be changed to "America the Beautiful."
3. Pay toilets should be outlawed.
4 . Cats should be required to have licenses just as dogs do.
5. Bicyclists who break traffic laws should receive the same fines motorists
do.
6 . The United States should have a law against spanking children, just as
Sweden does.
7. Our town should have a civic center for conventions and the performing
arts.
8. This state should not control liquor sales.
9. Immigration should be more carefully restricted than it is.
10. Our community needs an ordinance banning the hanging of laundry outside.
302
The proposal maker as consumer

1. The size of cars should be controlled by federal law.
2. Travel agents should guarantee that any airline ticket they sell is at the
lowest possible price.

3. The actual manufacturer of any generic brand product should be accessible
public information.
4. Kick stands should be standard equipment on ten-speed bicycles.
5 . All stores should provide free gift-wrapping service
6 . Packaged produce should be dated.

7. Alterations on women's clothing should be free.
8. Renters should get a tax rebate.

9. Book and record clubs should have no minimum purchase requirements.
10. The ingredients of all fancy drinks should be listed on the menu.
11. Advertising of beer and wine should be banned from television.
T h e proposal maker as employee.

1. The amount of money a student earns in summer employment should not
affect his tuition aid.

2. All employees should receive at least three weeks of vacation during their
first year of employment.

3. Full-time students who work should not have to pay any social security tax.
4. Workers in fast-food chains should unionize.
5. Waiters and waitresses should receive the minimum wage, regardless of
their income from tips.

6 . Large corporations should offer more summer internships to college students who are prospective employees.
7. Engineering firms should have apprenticeships for undergraduate engineering majors.
8. The college placement office should offer job search seminars to seniors.
9. The federal government should hire young people in a Summer Youth
Employment Corps.
10. The tax laws should encourage young people to set up their own small
corporations.
11. Large employers should offer day-care facilities for the children of employees.
T h e proposal maker as sports f a n o r participant.
1. NCAA football should have a play-off to determine a national champion.
2. The
NFL should not use instant replay to help referees on critical calls.
3. The baseball season should be shortened.
303
4. High-school football should be banned.

5. Professional hockey should impose stiff fines to curb violence.
6. The college's racquetball and squash courts should operate on a telephone
rather than in-person reservation system.
7. The gym should install Nautilus equipment.
8. All elementary-school physical education programs should include gym-
nastics.
9. Tennis scoring should penalize uncivilized behavior.
10. Our community should have an annual bike race.
The proposal maker as viewer and reader

1. Movies should not be rated, or should be rated separately for violence,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
sexual explicitness, and profanity.

Network evening news broadcasts should be expanded to one hour.
TV should have more programs for and featuring senior citizens.
It's time to bring back radio drama.
We should pass a law prohibiting the display of adult magazines in drug
and grocery stores.
Newspapers should include daily science coverage.
Our local newspaper should include a weekly listing of new books, with a
brief description of their content.
Presidential addresses should not be followed by rebuttal from the opposite
political party.
Local high-school sports events should be televised.
This country needs a history magazine with a format similar to Nafional
Geographic.
Part Five
WHAT EVERY
ARGUMENT
NEEDS
The Indispensable
Refutation
REFUTATION
The refutation of opposing positions is not a mere afterthought in argument. Discussion of refutation has been built into every chapter of this
book because refutation is an indispensable part of all positive argument.
To begin with, refutation affects your first consideration of audience; you
have nothing more than an easy demonstration argument (like "Running
is popular") unless you see at least the possibility of an opposition. In fact,
if no one has expressed an argument against yours, you should go through
the mental exercise of inventing opposing premises yourself, just to articulate other ways your subject might be approached.
Second, refutation influences the content and structure of almost any
argument. If you are arguing to characterize something in a certain way and
ycllr opponent defines a key word differently, you will have to spend more
time on your counterdefinition than you would if you were unchallenged.
Similarly, if your opponent emphasizes one cause and you emphasize
another, you must refute that other cause and show why yours is the more
likely candidate. And if your proposal faces objections or a rival, you must
308
. WHAT EVERY ARGUMENT NEEDS
show how your idea is more feasible, practical, fair, or sensible and your
opponent's less so. All of this is refutation, a necessary part of the support
for any proposition, especially one likely to meet resistance from its audience.
BUILDING ARGUMENTS WITH REFUTATION

IN MIND
Writing in On Liberty in 1859, John Stuart Mill described the ideal arguer
as one who can imagine and articulate all the possible arguments against
a position.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons
may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally
unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know
what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. . . . Nor is it
enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers,
presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. . . . He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them,
who defend them in earnest and do their very utmost for them. . . . So essential
is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects that, if
opponents of all-important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine
them and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skillful
devil's advocate can conjure up.
One device that can help you achieve Mill's goal of fairness and fullness
is listing the pro and con arguments on an issue. Such a list can be generated in many ways. You might put down all your own points first and then
think of opposing ones. Or you might do the reverse and imagine all the
points in a strong argument against yours. Either way, you will eventually
come up with some arguments that are directly opposed to each other and
some that have no counterparts. Here is an example of such a list of pro
and con arguments on the subject of colorizing old movies.
Colorizing Rejuvenates Old Movies
Colorizing Ruins Old Movies
1. The technology of computer
1. The colors imposed on movies
colorization is good and getting better.

2. Colorization improves the
TV and VCR markets for old
movies.
look unnatural and bleed into one

another.
THE INDISPENSABLE REFUTATION
309
3. The original directors would
3. Black-and-white film is an aes-
have used color had it been

available.
4. Colorizing makes movies accessible to audiences that
would otherwise not see
them.
5 . Colorization makes movies
appear less dated.
thetic medium in its own right.

4. These audiences are not seeing the
movies as they were meant to be

seen.
5. Colorization distorts film history.
6 . Prominent directors, actors, and
critics object to colorization.

7. You can always turn the
color off.
8. These movies are in the public domain.
Suppose you are developing the con argument on this issue, trying to
convince readers of the entertainment section of your local newspaper that
colorization ruins old movies. Some of your arguments are directly refuted
by the other side; others on both sides cannot be contradicted directly. In
supporting any argument for which the opposition does have a counterpoint, you will inevitably try to refute your opponent. A paragraph on
contested point 3 above might look like the following:
Colorizers often claim that directors of the 1930s and '40s would have used
more color had it been available or less expensive. Perhaps some directors might
have preferred color, but the fact remains that their achievement is in black and
white, that they mastered the medium available to them and created great
effects with it. Color is not an inherently superior medium for film. As all
photographers know, black-and-white film offers unique opportunities for the
composition of light, shadow, and line. Movies like Citizen Kane, Mildred Pierce,
SpellEound, and The Mgltese Falcon exploit the graininess and high contrast of the
black-and-white medium. Even after color was widely available, many filmmakers still chose black and white as the best vehicle for certain kinds of
movies: Bergman's The Seventh Seal, Wilder's Some Like It Hot, Frankenheimer's The
Manchurian Candidate, Hitchcock's Psycho, Allen's Manhattan, and Scorsese's Raging
Bull.
Some points on each side go unmatched. However, you can refute your
opponent's point even without a direct rebuttal from a matched point of
your own, and you can of course develop your own independent line of
argument.
310
. WHAT EVERY A R G U M E N T NEEDS
In our colorization example, the pro side cannot muster the authorities
to counterbalance the objections of all the directors, actors, and critics who
have been appalled by colorization. O n the other hand, the con side may
have no rejoinder to the suggestion that people offended by colorization
can simply adjust their TV sets, but still that argument need not pass
without comment.
Colorizers claim that the rest of us can simply adjust our dials to get rid of
the unwanted tint. But that is not the real issue. Anyone who respects film and
its creative history resents any tampering with the integrity of artifacts from the
past. Colorizing films is like painting the Washington Monument or modernizing Shakespeare's language.
Certainly most directors, actors, and critics agree that movies should be left
in their original state. Siskel and Ebert of At the Mouirs fame have registered their
disdain for the practice, and an outraged Woody Allen even sought legal means
to prevent colorizations. The only ones supporting colorizations are those who
stand to make a profit from the practice.
Even though one side may generate more supporting points than the
other in an initial list of pro and con arguments, the side with more points
is not necessarily the better case. One strongly weighted reason can seem
more compelling to an audience than any number of lesser ones. In our
colorization example, the con side might rest its whole case on the aesthetic
merits of black-and-white film, dismissing all appeals to wider audiences
or the feasibility of colorizing technology.
HOW EXPLICIT SHOULD REFUTATION BE?

Although an awareness of opposing views is necessary to help an arguer
construct a more convincing case, it does not follow that all the opposing
views should be articulated in one's own argument. Actually there are
dangers in including either too much or too little refutation. How inuch
of a voice you should give opponents in your own argument depends on
your audience's initial resistance to your view and their awareness of
opposing views. If a neutral or uncommitted audience hears your meticulous elaboration and heroic refutation of all possible objections to your
thesis, they may begin to doubt the force of your case. You may have
planted in their minds objections that would never have occurred to them;
they will begin to have an "argument with your argument." At the other
extreme, it can be strategically unwise to ignore the objections your audience knows and will raise, if not aloud then in their minds. Once again the
arguer has no simple recipe to follow, only sensitive choices to make.
311
EXERCISE
The following is a list of controversial issues. Make a table of at least three
points on each side (that is, definition, causal, comparative, evaluative
propositions). Match up any that directly oppose each other, and put the
unmatched ones at the bottom of each list.
1. The United States should/should not reinstitute the draft.
2. Employers should/should not assign specific vacation times.
3. Private secondary schools are better/worse preparation for college than pub-
lic high schools.

4. Soccer will/will never be really popular in the United States.
5. Senior citizens are an asset/liability to the economic health of the country.
6 . Smoking should/should not be banned in public places.
Take two matched points under any issue and write a paragraph refuting one side and making a counterpoint on the other.
Repeat the above, taking the other side.
Take one of the unmatched points on either side and try to dismiss it.
THE ARGUMENT THAT IS WHOLLY REFUTATION

It sometimes happens that you have no sustained argument you want to
make yourself, but you have a great deal to say against another argument
or position that you have heard of or read. Admittedly, arguments against
one position can often be flipped over into arguments for another, as the
discussion above reveals. But still, your main purpose in writing may be
to show the inadequacy of another argument. For example, you are angered by the stupidity of an editorial or column in the newspaper, so you
write a letter to the editor listing all the things wrong with it. O r someone
in your company has come up with a proposal and your boss asks you for
a written critique; that is, you are expected to find every flaw. Or your
seminar professor hands you a book or article to review and you have only
negative things to say about it. All of these situations call for refutation.
They do not ask you to come up with or defend any position of your own.
You may think that refutation is an impolite or even a dirty business,
an attack that results in hurt feelings and bitter enemies, but it doesn't have
to be if you keep the following principles of refutation in mind.
312
WHAT EVERY ARGUMENT NEEDS
The problem,
the reality
You,
the
refuter
The shared sense

of what good
The argument or
position
you are refuting
The
arguer
Refuters need not attack the other arguer at all. You can define your
activity as that of comparing the other argument or position against two
possible standards. The first is the audience's sense of facts and assumptions that give rise to the issue the argument addresses. The second is the
audience's sense of what good reasoning is, the ways we agree to draw
conclusions from evidence. You can fault an argument on either ground or
both, and you can even indicate which standard you are referring to: "The
information is incorrect." "The argument overlooks these important facts."
"The conclusion does not follow." "The reasoning in this article is confused." Such criticisms need never directly attack the personality of the
other arguer.
Imagine yourself framing the refutation to an argument you have just
read criticizing the students of today for being politically inactive. The
magazine article uses three extended examples of undergraduates, one
from a prestigious private university, one from a large state university, and
one from a small college. It points out the dwindling membership in politically activist groups and even in the Young Democrats and the Young
Republicans, and it claims that no new student political groups have been
formed in the last several years. As further, if less direct evidence, it also
points to the increasing enrollments in vocational majors, especially business.
You may not be in a position to support the counterargument that
students are politically active. You don't have the information, and you're
not even honestly convinced it is so. Still, you are convinced that this
article's characterization of students is too extreme, that its author has not
earned the right to make such a large claim on the basis of such small
evidence. So although you cannot uproot this argument and plant your
own, you can prune it back.
First, you might take up the reasoning. The arguer has cited dwindling
student membership in political organizations as a sign of apathy. You
cannot deny that fact; enrollment in such organizations certainly has declined. But perhaps you can criticize the significance of that fact. You
might argue, "Of course the membership in activist organizations like SDS
(Students for a Democratic Society) has declined. But that was always a
313
fringe movement designed to meet the needs of a particular political situation, America's involvement in Vietnam. Once the war ended, SDS was
inevitably defunct. Therefore, the decline in SDS membership is no sign
of political apathy."
You can also criticize the reasoning that increased enrollment in business courses and other vocational majors is a sign of political apathy.
Again, you are not denying the fact, only questioning its significance. You
might point out that what students major in reflects the job market more
than their political commitment. And who is to say that a business or
engineering student cannot be politically committed and active? Imagine
further that one statement in this argument falsifies the reality you know,
the statement about no new student political organizations forming lately.
You know of two on your campus alone, one that organized to campaign
for a professor running for the city council and another nonpartisan group,
SBG (Students for Better Government), which organized to encourage
good people to go into politics. You will certainly emphasize these exceptions because the argument you are refuting seems to be making a very
general claim. If the argument does not mention any exceptions or qualify
its thesis in any way with a "basically," "largely," or "generally" (that is,
"Students are generally politically inactive"), you certainly can criticize it
for exaggeration.
To summarize: You have found several ways to refute the argument
supporting the proposition "Students are politically inactive." When you
compared the argument to what you knew, you found that it overlooked
some facts. And when you examined its reasoning, you found that the
arguer failed to qualify the thesis and jumped to conclusions from facts
about declining memberships and increasing vocational enrollments. Thus,
your refutation has pruned back the thesis from "[All] students are politically inactive" to "most" or "many," and after digging around in the roots,
left it with less certain support.
PARTS OF A REFUTATION
Every refutation can begin by identifying the type of argument being
refuted, for each type has its inherent weaknesses. In earlier chapters we
have already indicated what can go wrong in definition, comparison,
caiisal, evaluation, and proposal arguments. A full refutation can also
consist of the following elements:
1. What is the issue?
Summarize the controversy, the events, whatever reality the argument responds to.
314
2. What does the other argument have to say about the issue?
Summarize the argument you are going to refute or state the position
you are calling into question.
3. Does this argument have all the relevant and accurate information?
Test the argument against reality; ask for verification of the facts
given.
4. Does this argument violate a standard of good reasoning your audience should hold?
Consider the type of argument and question whether the arguer uses
inapplicable or insufficient support.
5. Are there any flaws in accommodation?
Look for imprecisions in word choice, meretricious emotional appeals, mistakes in emphasis or ordering, and offensive audience manipulation.
Like the ideal proposal outline, this list is a full format you can select from.
Which parts you choose to put in or leave out will depend on your audience, their state of knowledge or ignorance of the position or argument you
are refuting, and of course their attitude toward it.
What Is the Issue?

If your audience is unfamiliar with the issue behind the argument you are
refuting, you will have to inform them right at the start. Suppose you are
refuting an argument in favor of mainstreaming retarded and handicapped
children. Suppose further that you cannot count on your audience being
aware that this policy has been mandated by law in many school districts,
let alone that much controversy has arisen over the wisdom of it. So a little
background information is called for. The information you give can take
at least two forms. You can answer the question "What events have
brought about this controversy?" or the question "What positions have
people taken on it?" or both.
What Does the Other Argument Have to Say

About the Issue?
A refutation has to take off from something. It makes no sense to go on
the attack without an object to attack, and that object can be anything
from a one-sentence restatement of an argument or position on an issue
to a paragraph or longer summary of the other arguer's whole line of
thought. Once again, how much summary or quotation is necessary depends on your readers' awareness.
315
Very often you may be refuting not a specific written argument but a
general position held by many people. So long as your audience does not
include the people you are refuting, you can open your refutation by
stating what others believe and then go on to tell why they are wrong. This
tactic is not quite the same as simply using an opponent's view as a
springboard to your own. In that case you have a positive argument to
make. Here you are only refuting.
If you are refuting a written argument that your readers do not have in
front of them, then you must do them the favor of summarizing or quoting
from it. And you must summarize fairly; you don't help your side by
misrepresenting the other or by presenting their position as one only fools
could hold. You might put this constraint on yourself: "My readers have
not seen the argument I am summarizing, but if they did, would they think
my summary fair?"
Letters to an editor and editorials that refute other editorials often omit
this opening summary because they assume that readers of the paper have
been following current controversies and remember the piece being
refuted. Therefore it is always difficult to pick up cold a refutation in a
newspaper.
Does This Argument Have All the Relevant and

Accurate Information?
Now you are getting to the meat of refutation. Any argument that has its
facts wrong, or not enough of them, or does not verify where necessary
deserves severe criticism. Of course, you can recognize errors in fact only
if you have greater knowledge yourself, and if you don't have that knowledge to begin with, you must patiently try to verify the facts in the
argument you want to refute. You probably would not even try to refute
an argument on a subject you knew nothing about, but you may still need
to check out specific pieces of information. For example, "Opponent"-the
arguer you are refuting-claims that no one ever scored a perfect ten in
international gymnastics competition; you check that fact in a book of
sports statistics. "Opponent" says that Alexander Hamilton was once a
candidate for the presidency; you find a biography of Hamilton and look
that up. "Opponent" says that the FDA regulates the use of dyes in
cosmetics and has banned some; you can try to verify that statement by
finding the government publication that gives FDA regulations on cosmetics. Checking out facts is not terribly difficult if the writer has provided
sufficient documentation or mentioned necessary sources. If not, you may
have something else to complain about. It is less likely that facts will be
wrong than that they will be stated in an imprecise way, in a way that you
believe gives them more or less significance than they deserve.
316
You might also consider if there are facts the writer has ignored. It is
possible for an argument to have all the facts it does give straight, yet to
have left out important information. Suppose that "Opponent" is arguing
that there is no unemployment problem today because more people are
working than ever before. You must agree with that fact-yes, in sheer
numbers, more people are working. But you point out that the population
is also larger now, and therefore the percentage of employed in the whole
population is less than before. How do you know when facts are missing
or inadequate? There is no magic test. We recommend a "show-me" attitude, a little common sense and skepticism, as well as background reading
on the issue.
Does This Argument Violate a Standard of Reasoning

the Audience Should Hold?
From the point of view of rhetoric, if you are going to refute an arguer for
poor reasoning, you can judge that reasoning only in relation to the argument's audience and situation. Different audiences and situations call for
different standards of reasoning. Whole textbooks are devoted to detecting
presumably absolute flaws in reasoning called fallacies. But what is a
fallacious argument to one audience may be persuasive to another. So to
criticize or refute the reasoning in an argument really amounts to arguing
that it fails to meet a standard of reasoning its audience has or ought to
have. The refuter tries, in effect, to convince an audience that they are "too
good" for an argument.
An article in a checkout counter tabloid once claimed in screaming
headlines "Elvis Lives!" The evidence cited to support this claim consisted
of a tape-recorded voice of unknown origin and authenticity (though
supposedly recent and supposedly of Elvis), a film clip of a shadowy figure
behind a screen door at Graceland during Elvis's funeral, and, most important, the fact that Elvis's middle name (Aron) is misspelled (Aaron) on his
tombstone. Just to seize on this last item, a refuter might ask by what chain
of "good reasoning" a misspelled name on a tombstone could signify that
the person allegedly buried under it is not really dead. Perhaps the tabloid
writer's reasoning went something like the following: "It is highly unlikely
that a person's name will be misspelled on a tombstone. Therefore if it is
misspelled, the misspelling is probably intentional and highly significant.
Knowing he is alive, Elvis's family probably did not want his real name
on his tombstone, so they had it deliberately misspelled. Therefore Elvis
is not dead."
Needless to say, most people would find this leap from physical evidence to subsequent inference unreasonable. A few people, however, will
still be persuaded, especially those who want to believe Elvis lives. For
THE 1NDISPENSABLE REFUTATION
317
them the reasoning in this article is acceptable, so we could say that this
argument meets the standards of reasoning demanded by tabloid readers.
If we refute this argument on the basis of its reasoning, we are really trying
to convince an audience that they ought to have a different or higher
standard of reasoning than the one it offers.
Are There Any Flaws in Accommodation?

Aside from errors in the reasoning and inaccuracies in the facts, minor
matters of format, word choice, and correctness may offend you and deserve mention in your refutation. For example, does the author consistently misspell important names like "Michael Anjello," "Minnieapplis,"
or the "Midevil Period"? Does the writer misuse pretentious foreign words
or phrases, saying fauxpas instead of coup d etat? Does she make grammatical
errors? O r any slips in taste or accommodation such as dwelling too long
on the gory details of some example or insulting the intelligence of the
audience by belaboring an obvious point? Professional reviewers in magazines and newspapers love to pick on these ants at the picnic.
You should never make such cavils the entire substance of your refutation. Then the reader could turn criticism on you for being picky, instead
of on the piece you are refuting. Nevertheless, a writer's credibility is
certainly undermined by signs of carelessness or insensitivity.
FOR YOU TO ANALYZE OR WRITE ABOUT

Here are paired pro and con arguments; you may support a counterargument to either side or refute one side or the other. Remember that you can
agree with the overall thesis, but still find flaws in the argument for it. If
none of these arguments engages your criticism, find one that does. Good
places to look are the editorial and letters-to-the-editor pages of newspapers and magazines, the signed columns of your campus newspaper, and
the articles in special-interest magazines such as Ms., Psychology Today,
Mother Jones, Sports Illustrated, The New Republic, and The National Review.
EXCERPTS FROM JUSTICES' OPINIONS ON SEARCHES OF

CURBSIDE TRASH BY POLICE
Following are excerpts from the opirrions in the Supreme Court k decision . . . that the police
may freely search through garbage left outside homes for collection. Justice Byron R. White wrote
the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice William H . Rehnquist and Justices Harry A.
318
Blackman, / o h Paul Sfeuevms, Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia. /ustire William j.
Brennan Jr. dissented, joined by /us fire Thurgood Marshall. /ustire Anthony M. Kennedy did
not participate.
FROM THE MAJORITY OPINION
/ustire White
The issue here is whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless
search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.
We conclude, in accordance with the vast majority of lower courts that have
addressed the issue, that it does not.
In early 1984, Investigator Jenny Stracner of the Laguna Beach Police Department received information indicating that respondent Greenwood might be
engaged in narcotics trafficking. Stracner learned that a criminal suspect had
informed a Federal drug-enforcement agent in February 1984 that a truck filled
with illegal drugs was en route to the Laguna Beach address at which Greenwood resided. In addition, a neighbor complained of heavy vehicular traffic late
at night in front of Greenwood's single-family home. The neighbor reported
that the vehicles remained at Greenwood's house for only a few minutes.
Stracner sought to investigate this information by conducting a surveillance
of Greenwood's home. She observed several vehicles make brief stops at the
house during the late-night and early-morning hours, and she followed a truck
from the house to a residence that had previously been under investigation as
a narcotics trafficking location.
Request to Trash Collector

O n April 6, 1984, Stracner asked the neighborhood's regular trash collector
to pick up the plastic garbage bags that Greenwood had left on the curb in front
of his house and to turn the bags over to her without mixing their contents with
garbage from other houses. The trash collector cleaned his truck bin of other
refuse, collected the garbage bags from the street in front of Greenwood's house,
and turned the bags over to Stracner. The officer searched through the rubbish
and found items indicative of narcotics use. She recited the information that she
had gleaned from the trash search in an affidavit in support of a warrant to
search Greenwood's home.
Police officers encountered both respondents at the house later that day
when they arrived to execute the warrant. The police discovered quantities of
cocaine and hashish during their search of the house. Respondents were arrested
on felony narcotics charges. They subsequently posted bail.
The police continued to receive reports of many late-night visitors to the
Greenwood house. O n May 4, Investigator Robert Rahaeuser obtained Greenwood's garbage from the regular trash collector in the same manner as had
Stracner. The garbage again contained evidence of narcotics use.
Rahaeuser secured another search warrant for Greenwood's home based on
the information from the second trash search. The police found more narcotics
and evidence of narcotics trafficking when they executed the warrant. Greenwood was again arrested.
THE INDISPENSABLE REFUTATION * 319
The Superior Court dismissed the charges against respondents on the authority of People v. Krivda, which held that warrantless trash searches violate the
Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution. The court found that the
police would not have had probable cause to search the Greenwood home
without the evidence obtained from the trash searches.
The California Supreme Court denied the State's petition for review of the
Court of Appeal's decision. We granted certiorari, and now reverse.
The warrantless search and seizure of the garbage bags left at the curb
outside the Greenwood house would violate the Fourth Amendment only if
respondents manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in their garbage that
society accepts as objectively reasonable. Respondents do not disagree with this
standard.
They assert, however, that they had, and exhibited, an expectation of privacy
with respect to the trash that was searched by the police: The trash, which was
placed on the street for collection at a fixed time, was contained in opaque
plastic bags, which the garbage collector was expected to pick up, mingle with
the trash of others, and deposit at the garbage dump. The trash was only
temporarily on the street, and there was little likelihood that it would be inspected by anyone.
It may well be that respondents did not expect that the contents of their
garbage bags would become known to the police or other members of the public.
An expectation of privacy does not give rise to the Fourth Amendment protection, however, unless society is prepared to accept that expectation as objectively reasonable.
"Public Inspection"
Here, we conclude that respondents exposed their garbage to the public
sufficiently to defeat their claim to Fourth Amendment protection. It is common
knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are
readily accessible to animals, children, scavenger, snoop, and other members of
the public.
Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose
of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have
sorted through respondents' trash or permitted others, such as the police, to do
so. Accordingly, having deposited their garbage "in an area particularly suited
for public inspection and, in a manner of speaking, public consumption, for the
express purpose of having strangers take it," respondents could have had no
reasonable expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items that they discarded.
Furthermore, as we have held, the police cannot reasonably be expected to
avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public. Hence, "what a person knowingly exposes
to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." We held in Smith v. Maryland (1979), for example, that the
police did not violate the Fourth Amendment by causing a pen register to be
installed at the telephone company's offices to record the telephone numbers
dialed by a criminal suspect. An individual has no legitimate expectation of
privacy in the numbers dialed on his telephone, we reasoned, because he volun-
320
tarily conveys those numbers to the telephone company when he uses the
telephone.
Backyard Surveillance
Similarly, we held in California v. Ciraolo that the police were not required
by the Fourth Amendment to obtain a warrant before conducting surveillance
of the respondent's fenced backyard from a private plane flying at an altitude
of 1,000 feet. We concluded that the respondent's expectation that his yard was
protected from such surveillance was unreasonable because "any member of the
public flying in this airspace who glanced down could have seen everything that
these officers observed."
Our conclusion that society would not accept as reasonable respondents'
claim to an expectation of privacy in trash left for collection in an area accessible
to the public is reinforced by the unanimous rejection of similar claims by the
Federal Courts of Appeals. In addition, of those state appellate courts that have
considered the issue, the vast majority have held that the police may conduct
warrantless search and seizures of garbage discarded in public areas.
The judgment of the California Court of Appeal is therefore reversed, and
this case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
FROM THE DISSENTING OPINION

justice Brennan
Every week for two months, and at least once more a month later, the Laguna
Beach police clawed through the trash that respondent Greenwood left in
opaque, sealed bags on the curb outside his home. Complete strangers minutely
scrutinized their bounty, undoubtedly dredging up intimate details of Greenwood's private life and habits. The intrusions proceeded without a warrant, and
no court before or since has concluded that the police acted on probable cause
to believe Greenwood was engaged in any criminal activity.
Scrutiny of another's trash is contrary to commonly accepted notions of
civilized behavior. I suspect, therefore, that members of our society will be
shocked to learn that the Court, the ultimate guarantor of liberty, deems unreasonable our expectation that the aspects of our private lives that are concealed
safely in a trash bag will not become public.
"A container which can support a reasonable expectation of privacy may not
be searched, even on probable cause, without a warrant."
Carrying Personal Effects
Our precedent leaves no room to doubt that had respondents been carrying
their personal effects in opaque, sealed plastic bags-identical to the ones they
placed on the curb-their privacy would have been protected from warrantless
police intrusion.
Respondents deserve no less protection just because Greenwood used the
bags to discard rather than to transport his personal effects. Their contents are
321
not inherently any less private, and Greenwood's decision to discard them, at
least in the manner in which he did, does not diminish his expectation of
privacy. . . .
Had Greenwood flaunted his intimated activity by strewing his trash all over
the curb for all to see, or had some nongovernmental intruder invaded his
privacy and done the same, I could accept the Court's conclusion that an expectation of privacy would have been unreasonable. Similarly, had police searching
the city dump run across incriminating evidence that, despite commingling with
the trash of others, still retained its identity as Greenwood's, we would have
a different case. But all that Greenwood "exposed . . . to the public" were the
exteriors of several opaque, sealed containers. . . .
"Grim Picture" of Society

In holding that the warrantless search of Greenwood's trash was consistent
with the Fourth Amendment, the Court paints a grim picture of our society. It
depicts a society in which local authorities may command their citizens to
dispose of their personal effects in the manner least protective of "the sanctity
of the home and the privacies of life," and then monitor them arbitrarily and
without judicial oversight-a society that is not prepared to recognize as reasonable an individual's expectation of privacy in the most private of personal
effects sealed in an opaque container and disposed of in a manner designed to
commingle it imminently and inextricably with the trash of others. The American society with which I am familiar "chooses to dwell in reasonable security
and freedom from surveillance," and is more dedicated to individual liberty and
more sensitive to intrusions on the sanctity of the home than the Court is willing
to acknowledge.
I dissent.
ENDURING INTEREST PUTS A TRUE CLASSIC ON THE LIST

W a y n e C. Booth
As someone who has had a lifelong love affair with various works that
appear on various "canonical" lists, I might be expected to get upset when
anticanonists offer their rival substitutes.
But the truth is that like most other lovers of Homer and Shakespeare (to
name only the two most canonical of all canonic authors), I have never embraced
a fixed canon of works that everybody ought to love.
My "list," never since adolescence formally written out, changes every year,
every month, as some new work offers me that special radiance that turns works
into classics (at the moment I am "nominating" Toni Morrison's Beloved).
Though some old loves have lasted, others have simply been dropped: I haven't
reread TrisframShandy for 20 years, though it must still be on my list somewhere.
What's more, some of the works that other people would go to the stake for
have always left me cold: I've never reached the end of The Faerie Queene.
So part of what the rebels insist on is surely sound: Frozen lists of "classics"
322
are not what we need, and such lists can, in the hands of martinets, lead readers
to hate "culture."
But there's another reason the rebels don't scare me: They obviously don't
believe their own more extreme claims. Some of them claim that it doesn't
matter what we read, that to study ally work is as valuable as to study any other
work-and therefore (the logic goes awry here) what we should really study are
such-and-such works, which are more valuable than those traditionally canonized.
I don't worry much about this kind of illogic, because the works the rebels
tout, while claiming that no works really deserve to be touted, will either earn
widespread admiration, and thus endure, or not; one good definition of a classic
is a work that is sure to hold its own in a fair fight.
And the works they attack will either drop from sight, or not, depending on
whether they continue to feed us. There has never been a fixed canon of the
kind that Education Secretary William J. Bennett and others sometimes seem to
believe in. What's more, we could lose half of anyone's current canonic list and
suffer no drastic consequences, provided our engagement with other works were passionatt,
and critical.
Others claim that the age of bourgeois aesthetic and ethical culture, buttressed by canonical lists and the illusion of a common human nature, is at an
end; as David Lloyd puts it, "the emergent literature of minorities . . . will
dissolve the canonical form of Man back into the different bodies which it has
sought to absorb." Well, maybe. Who can tell?
Meanwhile, such confident prophets of the demise of my loved ones write
to me, their reader, clearly expecting me to understand and embrace their (tacitly) canonical list of minor writers who are now, in their view, truly major.
And they write, at least some of the time, in our shared language, using forms
of argument that we share. Most comforting of all, they praise literary virtues
and effects that most "bourgeois" literature has praised for something like the
past 200 years: daring, originality, freedom from authority, and an embrace of
a revolutionary new epoch that only a few rebels can see for what it is.
What does scare me a bit is that while all this ill-defined debate goes on, a
large proportion of our graduates remains innocent of another "canon" entirely:
the range of reading, writing, and thinking skills that enable anyone to deal
critically with any text, classical or modern. The making and breaking of canonical lists leaves our major educational problems untouched.
A CANON MUST INCLUDE WORKS OF MANY CUL TUXES

David Lloyd
Recent debates on literary canons, courses in "Western civilization," and core
curricula have focused on the content of syllabuses as indicating the values they
express. While it would be foolish to underestimate the urgency of the need to
expand the canon, focusing solely on the list of canonical works obscures what
is really at issue. The inclusion of third-world or minority writings in the
present canon is a primary act of intellectual afirmative action, and thus far
. 323
more valuable, but in itself is limited to a minimal reparation for past ignorance.
For the canon expresses more than its immediate content. It is founded on
certain principles to fulfill specific functions.
Liberal, and even conservative, upholders of the canon frequently emphasize
its expansive and assimilative capacities The literary canon, they say, has
successively incorporated American writers, Irish writers, lower-class writers,
women writers, even a few Afro-American writers. Someday even some AsianAmerican or Chicano writers may be absorbed. They forget that the assimilative
function of the canon has always been its essence and that this assimilation
takes place according to a quite determinate model of human development.
Individual works or the literary productions of whole peoples become canonized
insofar as they seem to represent the attainment of an ethical selfhood defined
in terms of disinterest and universality.
All that is excluded from the canon is defined as primitive, uncultivated,
underdeveloped, or political. Only after the excluded classes, whether racially,
sexually, or politically defined, have undergone ethical cultivation and traded
their identity for identification with dominant models of culture can they be
canonized
This is the tale told in the founding texts of cultural education, from Schiller's Letters on Aesthetic Education to Arnold's Culture and Anarchy It has not been
significantly modified by modernism. The tale is intrinsically political and imperialist and intimately linked, as the vocabulary of assimilation and development
indicates, to the imperialist logic it legitimates.
Since the moment of its emergence, more or less in time with the American
and French Revolutions, the primary function of aesthetic culture has been to
give a developmental form to the manifest contradiction between the universal
claims of Western bourgeois states and their systematic exclusion of certain
classes of humans According to this scheme, all will be included in time, but
in time with their assimilation to a singular model of ethical subjectivity not so
improperly characterized as a white, bourgeois, and masculine ideal. A more
generous version of this canon has little consequence, serving only to confirm
the absorptive capacities of a culture to which all difference is subordinated.
In the meantime, cultural education will continue to legitimate the most
insidious myth of Western civilization, that it represents the apex of a preordained scheme of human development.
Paradoxically, the famous claim that culture transcends politics turns out to
be its most political moment For the problem with the values traditionally
expressed by cultural education-universality, disinterest, freedom-lies not in
those values so much as in the fact that culture itself functions to prevent their
genuine realization. The various representative works of the canon substitute
for any approach to cultural diversity, while purely formal rehearsals of ethical
disinterest and autonomy indefinitely defer the struggle to forge a society in
which self-determination at all levels might be achieved. That deferral, founded
on a premature declaration of human reconciliation, is the political function of
culture.
Any revision of the processes of cultural education must take seriously
Walter Benjamin's famous remark that every document of civilization is at one
and the same time a document of barbarity. Teaching the canon must give way
to a critical history of the exclusions and oppressions on which the "civilizing
324
process" has depended. If we would really know Western civilization, we

should know the terms and costs on which it has come to dominate and not
merely the catalog of fetishized cultural commodities which PR men of neoconservatism extend to us.
DA VID LLOYD RESPONDS TO WA YNE BOOTH.
..
What Wayne Booth writes of his reading habits is generous, liberal minded,
a little Utopian even. Unfortunately, it misses the point. The issue concerning
the canon has little to do with anyone's informal list of preferred reading matter.
It is not a question of love, but one of power, though in a Utopian scheme of
things one would like to believe that love would displace power.
Missing the point, however, and in the name of private delectation, is right
now a political act of a precisely aesthetic nature. The formation of taste is private
only in its immediate appearance, and the liberal appeal to private experience
masks the social mediation of taste through institutions for which the individual
is a primary ideological category and of which any given canonical "list" is no
more than a symptom. Private acts of love have little directly to do with the
apparatus of pedagogy, though they may be and are intended to be reproduced
as one of the ends of a normalizing education.
Opponents of the canon are its opponents not in order to establish their
preferences in some alternative list of essential works, but in order to dismantle
the universal normative claims disseminated through canons of however variable a content. That certain writers whose experience is that of minorities have
produced works that contribute to this critique does not imply that they are to
be reevaluated for a new canon. Rather, the facts of marginalization and exclusion which their works explore and the resoluteness of their rhetoric of negation
give us grounds and means to move outside the educational and hegemonic
assumptions that the canon represents.
In the meantime, if the discussion has an academic flavor, it is as well to
remember that the issues more widely broached here are not irrelevant to the
continuing business of "daily life." Much of the pathos surrounding the defense
of the canon may come, not from the viciousness of attacks on a cherished
institution, but from the fact that the ideological function of high culture has
been largely superseded by the mass cultural institutions that carry on its
hegemonic work. In conjunction with the critique of the canon, its opponents
will have to concern themselves with what already has gone beyond it, though
in not so different forms, namely, the formation of "private" subjects through
the most powerful assimilatory media of our time.
. . . WAYNE BOOTH RESPONDS TO DA VID LLOYD

Every writer should stand before the class and repeat aloud, 100 times, the
worst sehtence in that day's essay, explaining it clause by clause. Short of that,
will David Lloyd please come forward and explain just one of his sentences:
325
"Since the moment of its [modernism's] emergence, more or less in time with
the American and French Revolutions, the primary function of aesthetic culture
has been to give a developmental form to the manifest contradiction between
the universal claims of Western bourgeois states and their systematic exclusion
of certain classes of humans."
What these piled abstractions seem to mean is that there was a vast though
unconscious conspiracy among "modernists," American and French revolutionaries, bourgeois political leaders, and "aesthetic cultureu-among all the writers,
composers, painters, and readers, listeners, and viewers, since the late 18th
century. In preferring these works over those works, they all expressed the same
"primary function": to exclude "certain classes." These works embodied an
inescapable contradiction between everybody 's claims to speak for everybody and
everybody k rejection of everyone outside the center.
Can anyone really claim to have evidence for such a melting down of all
"differences" but one? Does my skepticism about Lloyd's wild conceptual
lumpings spring simply from a blindness imposed by having lived with some
monstrous "canon," from being one of those "white, bourgeois, masculine"
folks Lloyd deplores? Naturally I prefer to think that it springs from a respect
for "difference," a "palpable, resistant, cultural diversity" that contrasts sharply
with his monolithic abstraction, aesthetic-bourgeois-Western-white-civilization-culture. My skepticism springs in part from reading Marx (surely part of
Lloyd's canon), with his profound deconstruction of words like "self." It springs
from reading Montaigne, who cast a cold eye on universalist claims. It springs
from reading Hume and Voltaire, Fielding and Jane Austen, Derrida and Foucault-and finding that I can't put them all together as any kind of monolithic cultural
inheritance. They contradict each other, in me.
In short, "the canonn-works now widely studied-teaches us that there is
no canon and that what we must fear most is the imposition, from cultural right
or left, of some universalist dogma.
TEACH THE DEBA TE ABOUT THE CANON
Gerald Gruff
To teach or not to teach the Great Books? There is a solution to the recent
heated debate over this question that is so obvious, hardly anybody has offered
it: Teach the debate itself.
When I say "teach the debate itself," I don't mean that teaching the controversies over books should replace teaching the books themselves. I mean that
these controversies can be used to make books more interesting and intelligible
to students.
Our mistake has been to assume that we have to resolve the dispute between
David Lloyd and Wayne Booth in order to teach the humanities effectively, that
without a consensus on what to teach and why, the curriculum must be chaotic
and confused. Social and demographic changes since World War I1 have
knocked the stuffing out of the past consensus on these questions and expanded
the range of cultures, subcultures, and traditions asking to be represented.
326
At the same time, the so-called knowledge explosion has so diversified the
ways of thinking about intellectual inquiry that once agreed-on definitions of
the academic fields have been called into question. So, instead of a single shared
tradition there are competing traditions, and, where knowledge is under constant redefinition, the belief that educators have to get a consensus on what to
teach is a prescription for paralysis.
The most familiar symptom of this paralysis is the chaotic "cafeteria
counter" curriculum, which responds to the difficulty of choosing among conflicting interests by including essentially everything. Conservatives are right in
complaining that this kind of curriculum lacks coherence. But their only remedy
is for everyone to line up behind the conservatives' brand of coherence. When
you point out that their brand differs from that of other groups, they have no
answer except to cry "relativism," which doesn't usefully address the problem.
A more practical and democratic alternative to the cafeteria-counter curriculum would be to see that you don't necessarily have to get consensus to get
coherence. That is, disagreements and conflicts, if they can be clarified, can
themselves be a source of coherence. We could use the disputes over texts,
canons, and traditions (and their interesting history) to make the curriculum less
disconnected and help students make sense of their reading.
The point of recent attempts to broaden the canon of texts being taught is
not to substitute "Westerns as Lit" for "Western Lit," as an ill-informed writer
recently complained in the Wall Street Journal. The point is not to scrap the
classics (which are still very widely taught, contrary to belief), but to teach the
classics in relation to the challenges that have been posed to them. This means
teaching various kinds of texts from Plato to popular culture, from Western to
third-world cultures. The best way to kill the classics has always been to set
them on a pedestal, protected from hostile criticism and competing traditions.
Nor is it necessarily just "relativism" to recognize that standards that were
fornierly taken for granted are now controversial and have to be defended by
argument. Here, I'm afraid, is what really enrages many critics about the changes
now taking place in the teaching of literature: Whereas these critics could once
assume that their view of what counts as good literature was the official one,
they now have to fight for their view.
This is what the Right refuses to understand and what the media coverage
of the controversy over the humanities has failed to bring out. It is in the
interests of all ideological factions to recognize that there are legitimate reasons
for disagreement about what should be taught in universities, and that rival
positions cannot always be reduced to a distinction between trendy relativist
nonsense and sound wisdom.
Objectors will say that you can't hope to engage students in a cultural debate
when they don't possess elementary "cultural literacy," the knowledge of who
Napoleon was or the century of the Civil War. Seductive though it seems, this
line of argument ignores the motivations and incentives-or the lack of themthat make students want to acquire information. Students will start acquiring
cultural literacy when they see the point of doing so, when it comes as a
byproduct of doing something else that seems worthwhile and coherent. Feeding them lists of meaningless factoids, like those E. D. Hirsch would evidently
foist on schoolchildren, is no substitute.
THE INDlSPENSABLE REFUTATION
. 327
Which is why, to come back to my point, "teaching the debate" over culture
and education should be the response to the current Great Books controversy.
Students will take an interest in the Great Books when those books are presented in clear and interesting contexts. But this will be hard to do when books
are set apart from the rest of culture and from the debates that give life to
culture. The only way to save the Great Books is to put them into relation to
the forces that are challenging them.
Accommodation
Everything done to an argument from its earliest stages to shape it for its
particular audience is called accommodation. So far this book has dealt entirely with the various kinds of arguments and their essential components.
You already know that certain claims suggest certain kinds of supporting
arguments and that they may even require several types of smaller arguments as the proposal combines definition, comparison, evaluation, and
causal arguments. But if argument involved only putting premises and
conclusions in sequence, the best argument would be an outline-logical,
orderly, and explicit. An outline, however, is hardly persuasive; argument
needs the flesh of accommodation to come alive and dance for the audience.
Perhaps our point about accommodation would be clearer if we did not
use the word argument all the time. It suggests hostility, conflict, disagreement, even raised voices, red faces, and dilated nostrils. The word persuasion
is not much better. It often suggests an attempt to convince by using tricks
that bypass good reasons. So we stick with argument because at least it
suggests the proper emphasis on rational appeals. If we could invent a new
word, it would keep the emphasis on reason but add suggestions of respect,
of civility, of a dancer reaching out for a partner. All these added suggestions define what we mean by accommodation.
When you accommodate an argument to a particular audience, you have
to ask yourself two questions.
ACCOMMODATION
. 329
I. What am I telling the audience about itself?

2. What picture of myself am I projecting to my readers?
Both of these considerations should affect everything from individual

word choice to the entire structure of the argument. You will have to
decide whether a single word is too loaded (like persuasion above), whether
your audience needs extensive background information or already knows
enough, whether you want to start with your thesis or wait until you have
prepared your audience with some preliminary arguments.
Making such choices because you are considering the effect of what you
write is not a form of dishonesty. Suppose, for example, you are advocating
a rehabilitation program for former prison inmates. You are not lying if you
refer to this group of people as "parolees" rather than "former prisoners"
because you want to emphasize their present state of freedom rather than
their former state of confinement. You are making a word choice that favors
your thesis, as well as one that may even be more precise.
Some people think they achieve moral grandeur by "telling it like it is,"
"not mincing words," "being very up front." People who use these clichhs
think any consideration of audience is selling out. All we cam say of such
people is-they are all ignorant fools! Now there is an example of lack of
accommodation. We want to make a case for the moral respectability of accommodation. Do we help our argument by accusing our audience of
ignorance and immorality?
Accommodation is based on the assumption that other people-in written argument our readers-deserve respect whether or not they agree with
us, whether or not they are powerful. This same assumption has given us
kindness, civility, compromise, and the politeness to greet a stranger not
with a raised club but with an outstretched hand. That kind of respect for
others requires no betrayal of principle, no lessening of ardor for a cause.
In fact, when we hold our own positions most clearly and precisely, we
often have the least trouble finding ways to convince others. Because we
know our own minds, we can know our audience's as well-where they
are farthest apart, where they are closest together. Therefore, we can
choose the best words, the best emphases, the best arrangement. By accommodating to our audience we have not lessened our conviction; our
conviction has made conscious choices.
TELLING THE AUDIENCE ABOUT ITSELF
Identifying Your Audience

Before you can make fine adjustments for the sake of your audience, you
have to know who that audience is. In the world outside the classroom,
330
people seldom set pen to paper without knowing, at least generally, who
their audience is. Letters of application, proposals for grants, reports to a
boss, even letters to the editor-the occasion for writing and the identification of audience are often simultaneous. In a writing course, the situation
is somewhat different, since every paper is to some extent directed at the
instructor. But in every discipline, the sense of audience will differ, and
many writing assignments will ask you to address audiences with widely
varied attitudes and levels of awareness. Still, however, the writer may
need to articulate what is knowable about the attitudes and assumptions
of that audience.
Are the members of your audience all alike in any significant respect?
For example, is your audience young, middle-aged, old, or mixed? O r are
they homogeneous in any of the following ways: sex; occupation; education level; area of residence, from "this block" to the "eastern seaboard";
economic status; religion; politics; nationality; or ethnic group? Do they
have an interest in common such as hang gliding or rug hooking? What
is their predictable response to your argument? Are they likely to be
hostile, neutral, indifferent, lukewarm, wholeheartedly in favor? How
much do they already know about the issue? Are they well informed,
ignorant, or at any point between those extremes? And most important,
how do they think? What kinds of arguments are they likely to find
convincing?
You will not be able to answer all of these questions if your audience
is larger than any small, intimate group. But you ought to ask them anyway, and you must assess your audience's position on any issue that
touches your argument. You would rarely, for instance, launch into a
political argument without knowing the political loyalties of your audience, or address an argument for estate planning to eighteen-year-olds, or
advise welfare recipients on how to invest in the stock market.
The Audience That Is Everyone but No One in Particular

At this point you might ask, "What if I am not writing for any particular
audience? What if I just have any reader, the general public in mind?"
Though it is perfectly possible to have such a vague audience in mind
when you write, even that general audience has characteristics. Writers
often think of their arguments appearing in mass-circulation magazines
and newspapers like Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, or The Christian
Science Monilor. Yet even these publications have readerships that can be
precisely characterized.
First of all, what kind of reader would even bother to read an argument
on your issue? You say, "Everyone could read it," but in fact not everyone
would. Think how many times you have flipped through a magazine,
ACCOMMODATION
. 331
passing over many articles intended for a general audience which have not
caught your attention. So to begin with, the topic selects its own audience.
Some people will never read anything about Central America, conversion
to the metric system, sports, or the latest births, deaths, and marriages.
Others will read nothing but. (At this point we are talking only about the
kind of interest that will get a member of the so-called general audience
to start reading an argument. Once readers start, it becomes the author's
responsibility to pull them through to the end.)
Second, writing for a general reader does not make accommodation
unnecessary. Think about the characteristics of the so-called general
American reader. It would be fair to say that the average American reader
understands references to "end zone," "Babe Ruth," or "Elvis Presley";
would think that calling an action "unconstitutional" was saying something bad about it; and would not blaspheme the name of George Washington. That same general reader would probably need most technical
terms explained, would know relatively little about the culture and history
of other countries, and would be unfamiliar with any but the most famous
works in art, literature, and music. The general audience has these permanent characteristics as well as many temporary ones. You can count on
familiarity with the major news stories of the day, but not memory of them
one year later. Of course, no particular person fits this profile exactly, but
these are the kinds of characteristics you have to take into account in
accommodating to a general audience.
You may also want to get your general audience to cast itself in a certain
role. Perhaps your argument appeals to them as if they were more generous, more public spirited, more intellectually alert than they may be in
actuality. Some arguments successfully address us as we might be; others,
unfortunately, appeal to our less admirable potentials. Even a general
audience is not static or predictable in its attitudes. It can be ennobled or
debased by the appeals made to it.
BUILDING AUTHOR CREDIBILITY: PROJECTING

A GOOD PICTURE OF YOURSELF
Everything you write is stamped with your personality. That's true of your
shopping lists and even more true of any extended argument you write.
If you lost all the signed pages of your friends' letters, you would still
know who wrote each one; their word choices, their turns of phrase, their
content would give them away as written by a particular friend. Similarly,
though perhaps less obviously, the writing you do at work and at school
reflects your character and personality.
Since you inevitably convey your personality in your written argu-
332
ments, you should project the aspects of it that work for you rather than
against you. Over two thousand years ago Aristotle recommended that an
arguer should convey a positive ethos, an impression of a "good person
arguing well." This advice has two elements. First, you must argue well;
this whole book is about that. Second, your audience must not only understand your arguments, but also perceive that "you" behind the words as
a good person, someone who is intellectually honest as well as courageous,
moderate, just, generous, prudent, and wise. No book on argument can
teach you how to be a good person, and conveying an impression of
goodness without substance behind it is difficult. Unfortunately, it is not
impossible. Many a bad person has posed as good and won conviction to
catastrophic ends. We recommend no such dishonesty. But given what
good is in your position and in you, this book can offer you some tactics
to help bring out both.
CHOOSING A VOICE
In written argument you can to some extent create a personality by the
voice you choose. You are immediately present to your reader in your
words when you use the pronoun of self-reference, I. You create a sense
of closeness with your audience when you use you (as in this sentence), and
still another effect when you choose we. Finally, you can diminish the
presence of your personality (though never eliminate it) by writing in an
objective voice. You can and should move in and out of these voices in
different parts of your argument. The following discussion of their relative
merits will help you make effective choices, depending on your audience
and purpose.
Using I or Not Using I

Pick up a newspaper and read the articles on the front page. Is there an
I in any of them? Probably not. Do you have a sense of a distinctive
individual talking to you in any of those "I-less" articles, or do they sound
like a disembodied voice coming out of a box? Turn to the signed columns
and find one that does use I. Suddenly the voice has a personality that can
project anything from the stern wisdom of the political commentator to the
racy wit of an advice columnist.
Of course, the news is conventionally presented in the voice of objective
authority. When a journalist wants to convey an impression of fact not
influenced by personal experience or point of view, then it is most effective
to write impersonally, to leave out the I. Indeed, the conventions of news
reporting forbid the I. But in other situations certain effects can be
ACCOMMODATION
333
achieved only by writing in your own voice, by appearing in your own

writing as I.
The I of Personal Experience

Some writers avoid references to personal experience in written argument
because they think using the pronoun I is improper. Somewhere they have
heard that "one" doesn't refer to "oneself" as "I" in anything more formal
than a letter home. There is some truth to this belief because in many
writing situations (in history papers or lab reports for example) no personal
experience is significant. You wouldn't write, ". . . and then I turned on
the Bunsen burner" or "I feel that World War I1 was an unfortunate
occurrence."
But in other, less formal writing situations, if a personal experience was
in any way the origin of your argument-something that happened to you
or put you on the track of a conclusion-it need not be left out. Although
it may have only a small place in your argument, it can have a large effect
on your audience.
The following is the opening of a proposal that Vietnam veterans speak
out about their experiences. You know that a proposal needs a demonstration section to convince its audience that a problem exists. The author, Mr.
Broderich, demonstrates that a problem exists by telling of his own experiences in his own voice. After this personal example Mr. Broderich returns
to an objective voice.
When I first was on my way to the Vietnam war, it was difficult for me to
pick up the check. Even in the vast unknowns of New York, people wanted to
show their appreciation and to hold close for a moment a piece of their past.
Less than three years later in the City of Brotherly Love subway system, a whole
new world was shown to me.
I was on my first three-day convalescent leave from the hospital. I was going
home to surprise the folks. I was thin, weak, glad to be alive and in military
dress. They offered cheaper rates on the railroad to people in uniform, a policy
left over from the past. The money wasn't worth having my cane deliberately
knocked away and being shoved to the cement where I received a torrent of
verbal abuse and spit. An hour later at the train station a different group of
people would simply not allow me to pay for a treat. I know it was the uniform,
not me; it was just a symbolic gesture.
-rile Christian Science Monitor
We as readers sympathize with the author for what he has suffered personally, and that sympathy is likely to be extended to his thesis.
The I of Authority
I can be used even when you are not talking about your personal experiences. You can also bring yourself into an argument as an authority who
334
believes, thinks, claims, or asserts. Columnists who write week after week
on politics, economics, sports, or the arts have authoritative personal
voices that go easily into I. The language expert William Safire boldly
proclaims a change in grammar on his own:
I don't like the idea of claiming "It is I" is right for writing and "It is me"
is acceptable for speaking. The colloquial form has taken over. The subjective
form (I, they) should be used only when the word looks and sounds like the
subject. But when it looks like the object (as in "It's them"), use the objective
(me, them). If anybody demands to know who told you to do this horrible deed,
tell them it was me.
-William Safire, "On Language," The
New York Times Magazine
Notice how the biologist E. 0. Wilson puts his personal authority

behind the assessment of evidence: "The question of interest is no longer
whether human social behavior is genetically determined; it is to what
extent. The accumulated evidence for a large heredity component is more
detailed and compelling than most persons, including even geneticists,
realize. I will go further [italics added]: it already is decisive" (On Human
Nature).
If you are a student you are probably thinking, "That's fine for the
expert who can use I anytime, but what about me?" The I of authority does
come at a great price, and few things sound worse than an unjustified claim
to it. Yet anyone who engages in an argument should acquire at least a
modest authority on that subject, should have conscientiously read much
on the topic, interviewed the people concerned, or collected fresh evidence.
The authority that honestly comes from background work can give the
arguer an I to stand on.
Authority can come not only from recognized expertise or research in
a discipline, but also from bringing to an issue a unique point of view. The
management expert who proposes a new scheme for running a family
e&ciently, the psychoanalyst who brings to a new field such as literature
or history the constructs of his or her own, or the classical musician who
evaluates jazz-all of these bring a kind of authority from a fresh point of
view. And this authority comes across well when claimed by a vigorous
The Ordinary I
You can sometimes accommodate to your audience most effectively by not
claiming authority. If your point of view on an issue is that of an average
citizen, a typical college student, a representative suburbanite, an ordinary
American, you can identify yourself in that role. Here is an example from
a letter to an editor:
ACCOMMODATION
. 335
I'm a rather ordinary woman, rational rather than radical, one whose femininity has never been doubted. But having seen sex discrimination first hand
both in my schooling and in my work life, I do support ratification of the Equal
Rights Amendment.
-Tile
Christian Science Monitor
The reasoning behind the appeal of the "ordinary I" is something like this:
"If an average person like me can hold this position, so can an average
person like you. If something is good for or appealing to ordinary me, it's
good for you too." The effect here is to put the writer on the same level
as the audience, not on a platform looking down at them.
The I of Method
You can also speak in your own voice in order to let your reader know what
the method of your argument is. In other words, you can guide your
readers through your own argument, stopping now and then to give directions or encouragement or to explain your method of investigation. You
can say things like "First I will trace the history of the Shakers," "I found
such austerity difficult to understand until I had seen a Shaker house," and
SO on.
What do you gain by using 1 to convey information that could be
written impersonally? You can gain several things. First, you highlight the
organization of your argument if your argument is at all extended or
complicated or difficult. Structuring sentences can be written without /,
but they gain emphasis when 1 speaks them. Second, you add the sense
of a person going through a process and inviting readers to join in. "If 1
went through these steps and came to a conclusion, so can you." Finally,
there are sometimes spots in your argument where you might lose, confuse, or alienate your readers. You want to carry them over such spots so
they will continue reading, and you can do that by having I tell them of
the trouble to come. Here is an example of such a warning worded in
different ways.
Impersonal
You
1. This is a difficult concept to grasp until the Russian

meaning of science is understood.
2. You will find this concept difficult to grasp until you
understand what the Russians mean by science.
3. I found this concept difficult to grasp until I
understood what the Russians mean by science.
Nothing is wrong with version 1, and it might be the preferred choice in

some circumstances, but it doesn't call attention to itself as dramatically
as 2 or 3. Version 2 is certainly emphatic, but it also risks insulting the
reader's intelligence, quite the opposite of what you want to do in argu-
336
ment. Number 3 gets attention without talking down. I admits to the

difficulty, thereby making the author seem more human and the reader
smarter. The writing situation will determine which choice is most effective.
The Dangers of I
Every choice you make in accommodation is a double-edged sword. It can
work for you, but it can also hurt you. The advantages of using the I of
personal experience, of authority, of method have corresponding disadvantages.
1. The personal experience of I can sometimes be set aside by readers
2.
3.
4.
5.
as untypical. Your readers could easily say, "This incident might

have happened to you, but you can't draw any general conclusions
from it." The more personal the experience seems, the less it seems
to represent a large number of similar experiences.
Your reader might find your claims to authority-your "I think" and
"I believe1'-arrogant. It is one thing for a seasoned diplomat to make
statements about United States foreign policy beginning "I think" or
"I believe," but quite another for someone with no obvious credentials.
The Z of method is emphatic, but that emphasis can work against
you. If, for instance, 1points out all the procedures gone through, the
reader can more easily criticize what was or was not done. "I take my
figures from a newly published study," brags the writer. "You mean
you didn't check them out yourself?" replies the reader.
In some situations, calling attention to I is inappropriate or foolish.
If the use of I gives your audience an opening to question your
objectivity, then be very cautious. Of course you must admit anything that if found out would damage you, but don't harp on the
problems for Z or the benefits either. Or if your argument includes
a very severe criticism, even a denunciation, of someone else's actions
or arguments, such an attack should never seem as personal (it should
not be personal) as the use of I would make it.
A letter or signed article is often a legitimate occasion for the author's
I. But if you are writing as the representative of a group, as the
chairman of a committee, and if what you write is not going to appear
under your own name, the unexplained presence of Z may dismay
your reader. Can you imagine an official report from the FDA including a sentence like this: "I have done some research, and, although
my results were ambiguous, I still think nitrates are harmful"?
ACCOMMODATION
. 337
We have given you two kinds of advice: some of it urging you to use
1 and some of it warning you against it. We have not given you a rule to
follow; instead you have to choose for yourself, taking into account your
audience, your subject, and yourself. The benefit of I is that it can humanize your argument. The danger of I is that it can work against the very basis
of argument by suggesting too personal a point of view. We have no
argument without interpersonal grounds of support.
Using You or Not Using You

If you want to get the attention of someone near you, you call her name
or put your hand on his shoulder. Keeping the attention of a listener who
is within reach is fairly easy in face-to-face interaction, and even when you
are speaking before a large audience, you can pull their attention toward
you by maintaining eye contact and addressing them collectively as you.
But it is much more difficult to get and keep the attention of a reader who
can drop your pages without the slightest twinge of conscience.
One way is to use the written equivalent of the hand on the shoulder
or the eye contact. Address your audience as you. Unless you are writing
an argument in a letter to one person, your audience will be many people,
not one. Yet, paradoxically, the act of reading is solitary and any written
argument is taken in by only one person at a time. So the indefinite you
can be an efficient way of addressing the entire audience as though you
meant only that one person.
The purpose of accommodation is to bring your argument to your
audience, and direct address accommodates by bringing an argument to an
audience in two ways. First, it helps capture and keep attention. Just as we
perk up when we hear our own names, so also do we respond with extra
attention when addressed directly. Second, using the you of direct address
makes it easier to apply an argument to your audience. When you have seen
how difficult the problem is, when your future is involved, when you will
profit, the you being addressed, actually any reader of the argument, will
feel the impact of its appeals more forcefully. Readers will not have to
work to imagine themselves in the situation of the argument; you, the
writer, can do that for them.
Opening with an Attention-Getting You

Many experienced writers begin arguments with a direct address or invitation to you. These attention-getting you's appear even when the subject of
the argument is far removed from the reader's experience; the professional
writer knows how to draw a reader to a subject not normally interesting,
so the writer dangles a hook for you. The direct address is usually dropped
338
after a few paragraphs once the writer gets down to business. Here is an
example of a you opening in an otherwise impersonal argument.
Would you rather have botulism or cancer?
That's essentially the question federal regulators are asking in formulating
policy on the hazard of sodium nitrite in cured meats, fish and poultry.
-Jean Carper, "Stop Playing Politics
With the Nitrite Issue," The Washirr~ton
Post
After that collar-grabbing opening, the author never uses you again.
Audience Creation
That opening you can be more than just a hook to grab the uninterested.
It can also single out just those to whom your argument is directed and
define or create the audience you are aiming at. Of course, this very specific
audience creation may also drive away those unconcerned with your argument, but that may be no loss. Those who are concerned will feel they are
being given special treatment and will read more attentively.
Here is an example of audience creation from the opening of a proposal
on how to prepare a preschool child for kindergarten.
If you have a 4-year-old who will begin school in September, what can you
do now-every day-to help the child get a good start? You can do what the
kindergarten teachers do-recognize that learning comes through experience
and that all experiences come through the senses.
-Bernard Ryan, Jr., "Helping Your
Child Get a Start in School," The New
York Times
This argument speaks directly to the parents of four-year-olds. Others

might read this little proposal, but they are overhearers rather than the
target audience.
A Scene Starring You

The next step up from identifying the role of you is having you act that role
out. A writer can not only talk to a reader, but also imagine that reader into
a scene. You then becomes more than just a reader; you is a doer involved
in some action that pulls you into the argument. Victor B. Scheffer used this
technique in the opening lines of an argument against killing seals for their
fur.
You pause for a moment in a shop where a sealskin coat is on display. You
admire its rich and perfect texture. Expensive, yes; but oh, so handsome. Then
ACCOMMODATION
339
a troubling thought: Is it right to want luxury at the cost of wildlife? You

remember the ads and articles and television shows that deplore the killing of
seals. You hesitate-then drift on. Maybe you'll return, but for the moment,
you're overwhelmed by an odd sense of guilt.
The writer takes you on a shopping trip and imagines even your unspoken
thoughts. Here Scheffer skillfully (though perhaps to some tastes excessively) identifies the points of contact between the average reader's life and
the subject of his argument. Most of us have nothing whatever to do with
seals, but we have heard of the controversy about killing them in ads and
articles and television shows, as the author reminds us, and we can choose
whether or not to buy a sealskin coat.
Giving Directions to You

This whole book is an example of speaking to the reader as you in order
to give directions. We are constantly suggesting that you consider this
point and you avoid that tactic. We hope we have avoided the dangers of
sounding either too tentative or too dictatorial. How can those dangers be
avoided? Perhaps the best way is not to give a direction without including
the reasons for giving it or the consequences of following or not following
it. That is, never say boldly to your reader, "Don't you ever buy a sealskin
coat" without giving a reason like "If you do, you will be contributing to
the deaths of innocent animals." And now that we have given you that
direction we will give you a reason for it. People prefer to move themselves
by the force of their own conviction rather than to be moved by the force
of external authority. No one responds well to a list of unexplained dos
and don'ts.
Directions appear naturally in the supporting arguments for a proposal,
particularly in the description of the first step. These directions are often
addressed to you, as in the following excerpt from a time-management
expert's advice on how to begin using time efficiently:
It may seem trite to say so, but perhaps you've never stopped to take stock.
The basic resource that each person starts with is his lifetime-all the minutes,
hours, days, and years that he is alive. It's only within this total framework that
good time planning is possible. Which is why I recommend you start by defining
your lifetime goals.
1'11 soon get down to your minute-by-minute problems of today. But right
now a written Lifetime Goals Statement will help you to discover what you
really want to do, help motivate you to do it and give meaning to the way you
spend your time. It will give a direction to your life. It will help you feel in
control of your destiny. And it will provide a measuring stick against which to
gauge alternate activities as they come along. You'll be better able to balance
340
the many aspects of your life. And you'll reduce unnecessary conflict over how
to use your time.
-Alan Lakein, How fo Get Control of Your
Time and Your Life
Talking to You About the Argumenf

Throughout Parts I to IV we have talked about the value of imagining your
reader's responses to your argument. When you define a key word, for
example, you must anticipate how your reader might confuse that term
with another. When you single out one cause, you have to be aware of
what other causes might occur to your reader, and when you propose a
course of action, you must overcome your reader's inertia and forestall any
objections. In these and in many other places, you are putting yourself in
your reader's mind.
Putting yourself in your reader's mind is one thing; it is quite another
to show your reader that you have done so. O n e way, as we have demonstrated, is to use direct address. In effect, you articulate the thoughts in
your reader's mind and use those thoughts as structuring devices in your
argument. Here are some examples of this use of direct address from
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail." W e are quoting
only the first sentences from several different paragraphs:
You may well ask, "Why direct action?" [The answer to this anticipated
question follows.]
You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break the law.
[In this case, King is about to answer a verbalized objection rather than an
imagined one.]
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. [Here King
senses that his point is a difficult one for his audience to comprehend, and he
warns them to give it special attention.]
The Pitfalls of Using You

You is a very powerful audience grabber, sometimes too powerful. If readers feel that they are being grabbed by the collar and forcibly detained,
their reaction will be negative. They may not fling your pages across the
room, but they will feel uncomfortable, as though someone with bad
breath were standing too close.
Here is an example of excessive use of you from a brochure soliciting
subscriptions to a magazine.
I have reason to believe that you are part of an important minority in this
country . . . that you are politically alert, independent and more than a wee bit
suspicious of power. . . that you won't be lured by high-sounding but meaningless political rhetoric . . . that you are concerned about trends in government that
ACCOMMODATION
341
threaten certain inalienable rights like liberty and the pursuit of happiness
. . . that you cherish old-fashioned liberal ideals but are suspicious of mounting
government intervention in our lives . . . that you try to read between the
headlines of newspapers . . . that you don't want your issues spoon-fed and
predigested . . . that you don't want other people to do your thinking for you
. . . that bungling bureaucracy in government angers you . . . that you believe
well-informed, responsible, involved citizens can bring about much-needed
changes in our system . . . that you inquire.
If you can say, "Yes, that's me," allow me to say thank you. It's people like
you who helped create and build this nation. And we need more of you if our
democratic system is to survive.
That's why I urge you to stand up and be counted-to make your voice heard
on important matters-to keep yourself continually informed about the issues-to keep your mind open without losing sight of your principles.
This kind of "hard sell" probably repels more than it convinces. The crude
repetition of you, you, you is too aggressive and too manipulative. The writer
who uses too many y o u i one after the other, seems to be bullying or
flattering an audience rather than allowing them freely to make up their
own minds.
The you of direct address can also work against accommodation if it is
used to characterize an audience negatively. To accuse your audience, to
make them feel guilty, lazy, stupid, fat, inadequate, bigoted, uninformed,
immoral, or insensitive is no way to bring them around to your side. Some
arguments do require that people criticize themselves or see their own
shortcomings, but that does not mean that the writer should address them
about their failures. Unless the circumstances were exceptional, a writer
trying to persuade an adult audience to enroll in the community night
school could not motivate them with insults: "You are stupid and lazy. You
sit in front of the television set, drinking beer, while your mind rots away."
Bringing them to some state of self-criticism in order to motivate them
might be done in one of the following ways instead:
1. The arguer can include himself in the accusations, using we instead
of you: "We all spend too much time in front of the television set
while the exciting world of new knowledge and ideas passes us by."
2. O r the arguer can be impersonal, creating a group to which neither
she nor the readers necessarily belong. Then the readers have the
freedom to decide whether they fit into this group: "Most Americans
think their education is over when they finish school. They settle in
front of the television set and allow their minds to go idle, losing
what learning they once had."
Either of these tactics might work better than an insulting direct address
that is in effect a direct attack. Direct address is most effective when it
attracts readers into an argument and guides them through it, not when
342
it pulls them by the hair. Notice how Lance Trusty, author of the following
advice for college students, avoids direct address when he characterizes
students negatively, but switches to you when he offers them positive
suggestions.
Few students recognize the importance of self-conditioning in their examination attitudes (remember Dr. Pavlov, who was trained by his dogs to ring a bell
whenever they salivated?). One who prepares thoroughly for tests is usually
relaxed and confident. Luck has little to do with his or her performance. This
student quickly becomes "test-wise."
The poor student relies heavily on cramming and luck and hopes for the
"right questions." Despite his surface bravado, he senses the dangers ahead, and
"psyched out," does poorly. Each "blown" exam makes the next one more
important and the student more tense and forgetful. By the end of the semester,
when the low grades arrive, he has conditioned himself to be a poor test taker.
The sense of well-being conferred by good grades makes it easier and more
rewarding to maintain them, while failure breeds an avoidance pattern. So a
good start in college is vital for the conditioning process. Pulling up low grades
is a powerful test of self-discipline, and one that many fail.
Learn [you understood] the required material through scheduled reviews.
Your first college crisis will be midterm week, when every professor seems to
assign a major exam simultaneously, so plan your reviews carefully. Avoid or
minimize [you understood] cramming, a common but poor study technique.
If the test in a given subject covers, for example, the notes from three weeks'
classes, and you need five reviews, space them equidistantly over the study
period. Do [you understood] the final review just before the test.
Check [you understood] previous examinations, often available from student
organization files, the library, or friends who have taken the course. Evaluate
[you understood] their overall format and the kinds of questions asked. What
are the professor's thought patterns? Which elements of the course does he
emphasize? The answers should shape your preparations.
-Lance Trusty, "College Students:
Test-Taking Advice for the Wise," The
Shridian Science Monitor
Dialogue Building with Questions

Questions are another excellent device to bring your readers into dialogue
with you. When you are interested in what you are reading, don't questions about the material occur to you? And when someone asks you a
question, don't you have a natural impulse to answer it? (Didn't you have
a natural impulse to answer that question?) When you write arguments,
you should take advantage of your readers' instinct to ask and answer
questions.
Suppose you work up a proposal in favor
of changing the parking regulations where you work. In the course of
QUESTIONS THAT YOU ANSWER
ACCOMMODATION
343
doing your research, you asked many questions: "What are the legal ordinances governing parking near a building with a certain occupancy? What
inconveniences do the current regulations create?" After investigating the
issue, you have answered these questions for yourself.
When you write up your argument remember that your readers will
most likely be asking the same questions. If you want to accommodate
your argument to their mental processes and pull them into dialogue with
you, ask fhe questions for them. Anticipate the questions, articulate them, and
then answer them. If you include these structuring questions, readers may
follow your argument more easily because it duplicates their own reasoning process.
Asking and answering questions can help you to structure your argument, to decide what parts come in what order. Suppose, for instance, you
think of an objection or a question that readers are likely to raise at a
particular point. If you ask that question and then answer it satisfactorily,
you effectively forestall that objection and strengthen your argument. Carl
Sagan uses this technique in an argument on the nature and causes of sleep.
It makes sense that today, when sleep is highly evolved, the stupid animals
are less frequently immobilized by deep sleep than the smart ones. But why
should they sleep deeply at all? Why should a state of such deep immobilization
ever have evolved?
-Carl
Sagan, The Draptrs
o/
Eden
The questions that Sagan asks here are those that any intelligent reader
would ask at this point in the discussion. And once readers have been
drawn into the discussion this way and their reasonable questions satisfactorily answered, they are more likely to become your allies than your
opponents.
Unlike
the structuring question that you ask and answer for your readers, the
rhetorical question is one you ask but don't answer. In a sense, your readers
answer it themselves, in their own heads; thus, rhetorical questions are an
excellent device for involving readers in a dialogue with you. When they
find themselves mentally answering your questions, they are in effect
talking with you.
Since a rhetorical question is really a way of making a statement your
audience will agree with, it should be worded so that it requires only a
short predictable answer. You ask, "Do we want our school to have a bad
reputation?" The readers feel compelled to answer, "No." You ask, "What
kind of parent allows her ten-year-old child to be out until 2:00 in the
morning?" Your readers quickly reply, "A bad one." They may not even
consciously verbalize the short answer that is required; the question itself
seems to provide it. However, any question requiring a lengthy, comp1iRHETORICAL QUESTIONS: QUESTIONS THAT YOU DON'T ANSWER
344
cated answer-"Why
is bubble gum so popular in the United States?"
"What are the qualities of a good high-school principal?"-should not be
left unanswered by the writer. The questions that have to be answered at
length are the kind of structuring questions we talked about above.
Of course, the rhetorical question works only if readers answer it in
exactly the way that will support your argument. If they answer it in the
opposite way, it is working against you. So the rhetorical question must
be framed and asked in such a way that just the right answer, just the one
word, is the only one that occurs to your readers. The writer of the following (from a proposal that drug addicts receive free drugs) knows exactly
what answer to expect from the final rhetorical question in the paragraph:
In planning what to do right now, we have to start with the fact that addicts
as a rule can't shake the habit, and that nothing we know how to do is much
help to most of them. The psychiatrists have quit on the problem. One of them,
Dr. Joost A. M. Meerloo, recently put their belief in his own kind of language:
"Drug addiction is much more related to the pusher and the existence of criminal seduction and the hypocritical laws than to circumscribed pathology within
the individual." Do you eliminate the pushers and criminal seduction and
hypocritical laws by ordering people into hospitals?
-Jonah J. Goldstein, "Give Drugs to
Addicts So We Can Be Safe," The
Saturday
EvenlnX
Post
The readers are supposed to answer the last question with a resounding
"No!" A contradictory "Yes" would be disastrous and even a doubtful
"Maybe" would be damaging. But with a no in mind, the readers will be
more receptive to the proposal that follows. The unanswered rhetorical
question is also a vehicle or outlet for some of the emotion you feel about
your topic and want to convey. It is especially effective for communicating
anger or defiance or the exasperation the author feels, as in the preceding
example.
A rhetorical question is an effective accommodation device when you
feel confident that your readers will answer it the way you want and
comprehend just the shade of emotion you want to convey. But use the
rhetorical question sparingly. An argument that is merely one question
after another, that keeps readers answering "Yes," "No," "No," "Yes," will
simply bewilder or irritate them.
Using We or Not Using We

We have already discussed the advantages and disadvantages of speaking
of yourself as I and to your reader as you in an argument. Another possible
ACCOMMODATION
. 345
voice is we. When we is used as the voice speaking in an argument, it can

have one of several different meanings.
The Genuine Plural We: I
+I
= We
The least common we in written argument is the we that stands literally for
two or more writers. That is the we that we (Fahnestock and Secor) use
occasionally in this book. It is the voice of two or more authors who have
produced one work and therefore sensibly refer to themselves as we. This
we is simply the plural of Z. It has all the same benefits of I (personality
and informality in the writing) as well as the same drawbacks. If you look
at the introduction to this book, you will find the we of plural authors.
Elsewhere, we occasionally means ourselves, the writers of the book, but
more often means the we of the next category.
The We That Unites Reader and Writer: 1
+ You = We
A commonly used we is simply a combination of I and you, writer and

reader. This we is a particularly accommodating choice. When we talks in
an argument, writer and reader get together in a friendly way. The egotism
of I and the finger-pointing at you are replaced by the comradeship of we.
Can you sense the difference pronoun choice makes in the following statements?
I believe in the Bill of Rights and I assume you do too.
We believe in the Bill of Rights.
Both sentences say basically the same thing, but the first version seems to
build a barrier between the writer and reader and at worst even challenges
the reader. The second, however, unites writer and reader in agreement and
suggests that the two are joined in a larger group.
We is a wise choice when your argument builds on values and assumptions that reader and writer share. Speaking as we, you can remind your
reader of things you have in common. Notice how the noted cancer researcher Lewis Thomas uses we to engulf himself and his reader in a
common failing and a mutual plea for improvement:
We like to think of ourselves as the most special things on earth, uniquely
endowed with intelligence and awareness, the owners and operators in charge
of the place. But this is a notion we will probably have to outgrow. If we try
to hang on to the view too long we run the risk of not outliving it. We cannot
346
survive indefinitely thinking of the earth as a kind of combination domestic

animal and kitchen-garden placed, by luck or providence, a t our disposal for
consumption. We are obliged, like all other living beings, to pay our way.
-Lewis Thomas, "On Ants and Us,"
D~srou~r
Here the we includes the writer, the reader, and by extension everyone else
who acknowledges the self-evidence of what the writer asserts.
The amorphous we stands for the writer and any member of the audience who would plausibly be reading the argument. That audience always
has characteristics, even if it is as large and vague a group as the American
public. After all, the American public does not include the Chinese public,
the Belgian public, the Costa Rican public. The we used in the Thomas
quotation does not really include everyone; it conveys the values of an
audience of Americans with some environmental awareness.
The Position Speaks as W e

Legend has it that when someone commented on how short Queen Victoria was, she drew herself up to her full 4 feet and 11 inches and replied
frostily, "We are rather small for a Queen." Queen Victoria quite properly
used the "royal we" to refer to herself, because even as a small queen she
was more than a single person. She represented a ruling house, a church,
a country.
In much the same way, when the pope speaks for the entire Roman
Catholic Church, he speaks as we. Anyone who speaks or writes with
authority as the representative of a group, an organization, a team, a
corporation, an institution, can speak as we. He or she has been chosen, as
it were, to speak for many, not simply to represent a personal point of
view. Not "I, the president of the corporation," but "We at Universal
Motors." Not "I, the editor of the Daily Serzfnel," but the editorial we.
The official we can be used only in sanctioned situations. It sounds
arrogant if its authority is not earned and if the position it is taking does
not represent the position of its audience. We all resent the politician of
the other party who claims to speak for "we, the American people" when
representing only partisan views.
The W e of Well-Defined Groups

No clear line separates the we that stands for a large, amorphous group and
the we that stands for a well-defined group, such as all people who have
visited Iceland. It is difficult to say exactly where a we that includes any
plausible reader of an argument turns into a we that excludes other readers.
But when that zone is crossed, when we excludes as well as includes, a
significantly different tactic of accommodation is being used.
ACCOMMODATION * 347
This new tactic is the creation of a group to which writer and readers
can belong but from which others are eliminated. The writer wants the
reader to join in a little circle of insiders who all have an interest, an
occupation, a something in common. This appeal to group identity can be
effective when the group legitimately has something to do with the argument. Suppose, for instance, you are writing a letter to the newspaper to
create support for a cooperative nursery school. Although others may
glance at your letter, the group you are really addressing is the parents of
three- and four-year-olds. Because they have common experiences and
share common concerns, the language of your argument can reinforce that
cohesiveness by helping them think of themselves as a group. If you
belong to the group too, you can appropriately talk about the experiences
we share: "We parents of four-year-olds know how easily our children get
bored and how much stimulation they need during the day." Readers who
fit the group will nod agreement and realize that the writer understands
their concerns and has something worthwhile to say to them. Perhaps you
can see the strength of such a group appeal if you try to imagine its
opposite: "Although I have no children of my own and have never been
around them much, let me tell you what your four-year-old needs."
In the following example, the author uses we to announce her community with Chicanos, the well-defined group she addresses:
We are as heterogeneous a s our history. Without that background of history,
it is difficult to understand us. No somas Mexicanos. [We are not Mexicans.] We
are citizens of the United States with cultural ties to Mexico and in some
instances to Spain, but, within our ties of language and culture, we have developed a culture that is neither Spanish nor Mexican.
-Lydia R. Aguirre, "The Meaning of
the Chicano Movement," Social Casework
Since arguments generally aim to make writer and reader identify with
each other, to agree as though they were members of the same group, it
may seem that we is always the wisest choice. But not always. We has
pitfalls just as I and you have, and once again knowledge of your audience
helps you determine the right choice. Some audiences will resist the armaround-the-shoulder chumminess of we. It may be presumptuous to think
that people will identify with your cause or your values.
Other Ways of Creating and Appealing to Groups

"Everybody," 'Anyone," '/Everyone," '/Peoplerr
The pronoun we is not the only way of creating a group for your reader
to join. The we that forcefully unites writer and reader is sometimes inappropriately personal. Anybody and everybody, however, can create groups
348
that do not necessarily include reader and writer, but do not exclude them
either. The group seems open for the reader's self-election. If, for instance,
the writer talks about "everyone who is concerned about higher education," any readers can nominate themselves for membership in that group.
Of course, no reader would want to join a group that sounded undesirable-"anyone who has lice," "everyone of below-average intelligence,"
"anyone who never reads a book." A skillful arguer mentions an undesirable group only as one to be avoided.
Naming the Group

You can also create desirable groups for your readers to join by naming
them and giving them attractive attributes. "The sensitive person," "highminded individuals," "people in the know," "successful young professionals"-all
these labels describe ingroups most people want to belong to.
Advertisements bombard us with glitzy images of attractive groups we
desperately want to belong to, if only we buy the right breath mint.
Putting the Opposition in a Group

Another way to pull your readers toward you is to push the opposition
away. This effect can be accomplished by identifying the opposition with
or putting them into groups that you define as undesirable. We are not
talking about creating scapegoats or calling names or pigeonholing people
in stereotypes. Such labeling is always unethical. Rather, we are talking
about characterizing groups by the positions they hold on a certain issue or
the consequences of those positions.
Suppose that you are arguing against price controls on milk with a
largely uncommitted audience. You can talk with your audience about the
opposition as "those who support price controls on milk," as though they
were not present among your readers. That identification is merely neutral,
but it still has the effect of separating your opposition from you and your
readers. They become "those out there." Of course, your argument cannot
stop with merely identifying "them" as the opposition; you must honestly
refute their position.
You can also characterize your opposition or their position in negative
ways. Those who haven't thought about the consequences of a policy you
are critical of may be "short-sighted" or "impractical." Those whose ethical assumptions disagree with your own might become "insensitive" or
"unfair." Those who don't know what they should know can be called
"poorly informed." Do not apply these labels unless you can support them
rationally. They should come from your considered evaluation of your
opponent's position, not from an emotional rejection of your opponent.
ACCOMMODATION
. 349
Using or Not Using the Objective Voice

Any sentence without a pronoun or any other reference to writer or reader
is written in an objective voice. Most sentences in an argument are written
in this background voice; the other voices of /, you, and we are used for
special effects, mainly in the opening passages, where writers introduce
themselves, and in the closing passages, where they take leave and perhaps
exhort their readers to action. But this other, transparent voice, which fixes
points in impersonal Lucite, predominates in written argument, and understandably so.
The objective voice creates certain effects or impressions on the reader.
First, it offers no competition to the content of the argument, but allows
the subject matter to claim all the reader's attention. Second, it diffuses,
though it does not eliminate, the emotional appeal of an argument. And
third, it downplays any egotism in the argument and replaces it with a
voice the audience is more likely to perceive as authoritative. Since argument by its very nature requires premises that more than one person could
hold, the objective voice goes a step further and presents premises for
anyone to hold. Thus, this impersonal, unemotional, authoritative voice
speaks powerfully in argument.
The dominance of the objective voice is in direct proportion to the
verifiability of the argument's content. In other words, the more information, the more impersonal the writing is likely to be. The objective voice
writes the textbooks, most scholarly articles, and in fact much of what
students read for courses. It certainly dominates in science, where the
criteria of verification are most precise and where the personality of whoever performed the experiment, programmed the computer, interpreted the
data, or wrote the paper should be of no importance.
When to use the objective voice is a function of the writer's authority,
the argument's content, and the audience. Some disciplines and writing
situations demand an impersonal voice; others allow more variation. When
well-established scientists write on matters of current research for their
colleagues, they use an objective voice. But when they turn to address
the general public on scientific issues, they often let their personalities
show.
Many inexperienced writers mistakenly believe that the exclusive use
of the objective voice is a mark of mature writing, but in fact accomplished
writers alternate voices. A more personal voice is appropriate when
thought processes are demonstrated, when the territory of a definition is
staked out, when the audience is drawn in, and is a must when personal
experience is narrated. The objective voice can take over when verifiable
information is being presented or when an evaluation, especially a negative
one, is set out.
350
FOR YOU TO ANALYZE

For w h a t audiences were t h e following passages written? (You m a y n o t be
able t o answer this question precisely, b u t a t least y o u can eliminate certain
audiences.) Examine t h e use of voice i n each. W h e n has t h e a u t h o r used
(, you, we, o r t h e objective voice a n d to w h a t effect? Do y o u think other
choices w o u l d h a v e been more appropriate?
Since this is a study of human fantasies, it may be useful to begin it by
considering that official fantasy which in the mid-nineteenth century went by
the name of scientific knowledge. I use the word "fantasy" not in a belittling
or deprecatory sense but to describe the quality of thinking or of mind that one
meets with in scientific or medical accounts of human sexuality in the English
nineteenth century. This thinking, one soon learns, rests upon a mass of unargued, unexamined and largely unconscious assumptions; its logical proceedings
are loose and associative rather than rigorous and sequential; and one of its chief
impulses is to confirm what is already held as belief rather than to adapt belief
to new and probably disturbing knowledge. And as we shall see it shares all
these qualities in common with pornography itself. No doubt most people think
this way about most things most of the time-that is to say, a good deal of our
thinking consists of fantasy cast in the form of opinion or assertion; or, in
another context, such thinking has the characteristics of what in the social
sciences is called "ideology." Furthermore, no subject has had anything like the
power to elicit such prepared responses as the subject of sexuality.
-Steven
Marcus, The Ofher Vicforians
About a year has elapsed since Pattee Library instituted an automated, computerized lending service. By and large it's quite nice. It's pleasant not to have
to fill out cards, etc. It's great to bring search questions to the operators at the
terminals and to get prompt answers. Service is speedy. By and large, the new
system constitutes an improvement.
There is one aspect of the new lending service policy which needs re-evaluation. That is the policy limiting "outsiders" to the University to Four books at
a time. The semantics of the word "outside" are questionable in the extreme.
I am an alumna of the University, and had the tacit, but obviously erroneous
idea that during my four years of undergraduate work and several terms of
graduate study I had just scratched the surface, vis-i-vis reading lists, human
development in various areas, continuing education and research in my major
area, and that Pattee would be available as a major resource for work in my
specialty as long as I lived in the area. I am now classified as an "outsider." The
four book limit curtails my personal research and enrichment role as a parent
considerably.
Now, despite my receiving nauseatingly frequent and insipid letters begging
for my contributions as an alumna from various moneygrabbing offices in Old
Main, I find my favorite connection with Penn State being seriously weakened.
I don't give a damn about football, but I love the library. I do not think alumni
ACCOMMODATION
. 351
should have the kind of problems getting books that they have getting football
tickets. I do not see our local public library putting any exceptional restrictions
on University faculty and students who use its facilities. I do not understand
why Pattee should curtail its services to a group potentially capable of gaining
more support for its services, if only via the mechanism of letters to our local
Assemblyman!
Folks, many of you will relinquish your student status before long. Your
chances at staff status are slim. You are in for a rude awakening when you want
to follow up into the bibliographies you were given in your 400s, etc. No doubt
you hadn't time to develop expertise in many areas during the 12-term rat race.
You'll find that many books cited are unavailable at your local public library,
and that the librarians there will tire early on of your requests for interlibrary
loans. An unfettered access to Pattee should be a lifetime benefit for holders of
degrees from Penn State. It should not be a "privilege" reserved only for membership in the "Alumni Association" or "Friends of X, Y, or Z" or the faculty.
-Martha Evans, The Dai1.y Collegian
FOR YOU TO WRITE

Practice your ability to move in and out of different voices.
1. The letter to the editor of the Daily Collegian in the For You to Analyze section
was written for the readers of a college newspaper. Try rewriting the same
argument for the Dean of the Library. What changes in voice would you
make?
2. Write four versions of a one-paragraph evaluation of a movie you have seen
recently: one with I, for an audience that has seen the movie; one with you,
for an audience that has not; one with we, for an audience that has; and one
entirely in the objective voice for an audience that has not.
VIRTUE IN ARGUMENT
The Intellectual Virtue of Reasonableness

So far we have been concerned with how you address your readers and
how they perceive your presence and your relationship with them in a
written argument. Now we are concerned with how they sense the qualities of mind you as a good arguer should have. We can call these qualities
intellectual virtues, as Aristotle did over two thousand years ago. We
usually think of "virtues" as habits of good behavior, but we can also
352
speak of virtues of the mind, habits of good thought. Like all virtues, they
are resolutions of extremes, midpoints between opposite tendencies. Perhaps the greatest intellectual virtue in argument is reasonableness, a moderation of the mind that sits between the extremes of stubbornness and
spinelessness. Reasonable people are open to reason; they are neither so
intransigent that they will not listen to the other side, nor so weak-minded
that they refuse to take a stand at all. Reasonableness in argument can take
many forms, and for convenience we have represented these forms in the
following imaginary self-declarations.
I Am Not an Extremist
Most people walk a wide way around any wild orator on a soapbox or
discard without reading any polemical pamphlet thrust into their hands.
We instinctively cringe from extremism and like to think of ourselves as
moderate, sane, and balanced. Given this predisposition, the appearance of
moderation is an effective accommodation device in an argument. But it
is not something you can fake for your audience. You must really have
identified other positions as too extreme, too strained, or too far-fetched.
If you can locate your position between two more extreme ones, then it
may be convincing to point out its moderateness to your audience.
I Know the Other Side and They Are Wrong

In most issues involving action and value, there are several competing
points of view. As we pointed out in Chapter 14, arguing for your own
position is usually not enough; you may also need to argue against competing positions. You cannot argue against them unless you understand them
first, no matter whether you see them as extreme, completely wrong, or so
close to your own as to be almost correct. And your reader must know that
you understand them, so you should present the other position or positions
in your argument.
The very least you can do is mention competing positions without
giving them any credit at all. This is the minimum requirement of reasonableness. You say, in effect, "I know my opposition, and they are wrong."
That is exactly what the English zoologist Richard Dawkins does in the
following excerpt from his book-length argument on the true nature of
evolution.
My purpose is to examine the biology of selfishness and altruism. Apart from
its academic interest, the human importance of this subject is obvious. It touches
every aspect of our social lives, our loving and hating, fighting and cooperating,
giving and stealing, our greed and our generosity. These are claims which could
have been made for Lorenz's O n Aggression, Ardrey's The Social Contract, and
ACCOMMODATION
353
Eibl-Eibesfeldt's Love and Hate. The trouble with these books is that their authors
got it totally and utterly wrong. They got it wrong because they misunderstood
how evolution works. They made the erroneous assumption that the important
thing in evolution is the good of the species (or the group) rather than the good
of the individual (or the gene).
-Richard
Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
Dawkins does not give an inch to the other side. But he cannot be accused
of not knowing what the other side represents, even though he disagrees
with it.
I See Merit in the Other Side

You can do more than just acknowledge the existence of the other position:
You can be sympathetic toward it. Without going so far as to concede that
your opposition is right, you can display to your audience that you treat
other points of view with respect and even kindness. You can compliment
the opposition on their reasoning, acknowledge their good faith, appreciate
their point of view-anything short of conceding that they are right and
you wrong.
Seeing merit in the other position is a middle road between cold acknowledgment and concession. It is the only civilized position left to you
when your opposition is strong and your audience will not allow you to
rebuff them. Here is an example from a science writer arguing that concern
for the environment is an important part of contemporary ethics.
Many intelligent, articulate and powerful people disagree violently with my
views. To them, the environmental movement seems a passing fad-Ian C. T. Nisbet, "Who Are Those
Environmentalists, Anyway?" Terhnology
Review
To call your opposition intelligent is certainly to see merit in them, though

such a compliment is not the same as agreeing with them.
I Concede One or More Points to the Other Side

Very rarely is any issue so clear that right is all on one side and wrong all
on the other. Of course, you must be convinced that your side has better
arguments, or you would not bother to defend it. But your opponents may
be right about a few things; they may even be right about all but one. You
do not have to show them totally wrong in order to show yourself right.
When right and wrong are mixed on your opponent's side, the indispensable gesture from your side is concession. Concession is the graceful
acknowledgment that "on this point" or "in that matter" your opponent's
354
argument has merit. Intellectually, concession is a sign of honesty, precision, moderation, and thoroughness. It is also a valuable accommodation
device. At the same time that you are being intellectually honest, your
audience perceives you as gracious and reasonable. The following arguer,
who is attacking Senator Proxmire's "golden fleece" awards given for
outstanding examples of government waste, concedes some value in the
senator's actions with compliments and great respect.
Senator Proxmire, to be sure, is performing a useful public service with his
awards. Without such men on Capitol Hill, those of us who work in Washington shudder to think of what would happen to public funds, over which lobbyists and special-interest groups hover like vultures. Proxmire serves as a stone
in the Congressional shoe, a built-in ego deflater for Washington bureaucrats
who begin to believe their own press releases.
-Psyclrol[yy
Tortay
Conceding so gracefully shows intellectual honesty and moderation. But

you cannot allow a concession to stand alone. It has to be answered,
downplayed, or discounted in some way. After all, if Senator Proxmire is
the conscience of Washington, why is our arguer criticizing him?
An arguer must "come back" from a concession. The paragraph of
compliments to Senator Proxmire is immediately followed with this retort:
But Proxmire is sometimes wrong, and sometimes becomes often when he
moves into areas about which he knows nothing.
-Psychology
Today
The indispensable accompaniment of a concession, then, is a but.
I May Be Wrong, But
...
Another way to show moderation is to admit openly the potential problems of your own position. To do so is not necessarily a confession of
weakness or incompetence. Not every position can or should be held as
though it were the one correct view, the only perfect solution. Nor can you
as an arguer be sure that you know everything or that you will never
change your mind. Arguing from a temporary or tentative position is often
the best anyone can do in specific circumstances. When you honestly find
yourself somewhat uncertain on an issue, though you have thought
through some arguments, you can shift into lower gear. You can admit
your own uncertainty, the tentative nature of some of your conclusions,
your openness to new ideas. Notice how paleontologist and science writer
Stephen Jay Gould qualifies his indictment of anthropologist and theologian Teilhard de Chardin:
ACCOMMODATION
355
Perhaps I am now too blinded by my own attraction to the hypothesis of

Teilhard's complicity. Perhaps all these points are minor and unrelated, testifying only to the faulty memory of an aging man. But they do form an undeniable
pattern. Still, I would not now come forward with my case were it not for a
second argument, more circumstantial to be sure, but somehow more compelling in its persistent pattern of forty years-the record of Teilhard's letters and
publications.
-Stephen Jay Gould, "The Piltdown
Conspiracy," Natural History
The modesty of this opening admission is appealing, and in the face of

strong opposition, such tentativeness may be the only sensible stance, just
to get a hearing.
Gould's problem was using circumstantial evidence to make a case
against a legendary authority. The writer of the following passage has a
different problem, a proposition that is so difficult to support he must admit
that difficulty.
I have claimed that a concern for environmental quality is part of the late
twentieth century ethic. 1 believe that our rights to a high-quality environment
have been permanently incorporated into the value system of modern Western
society, in just the way that workers' rights have taken hold in the past hundred
years. This opinion, however, is not stated without twinges of uncertainty. How
can I be sure that my finger is on the pulse of Western culture? Perhaps I merely
hear my minority opinion reflected in my association with likeminded people.
When challenged for evidence of widespread popular support for environmental protection, I find little to cite but the record of the U.S. government (and
those of other Western nations) in enacting radical environmental legislation.
However, this evidence by itself is far from persuasive: the idea that the U.S.
Congress reflects the will of the people is contested by almost everyone. . . .
But how do we know whose values are twisted? I have to admit that I may
be wrong. Perhaps the leaders of the oil industry, the Chamber of Commerce,
the W a l l S t r e e t Journal, the Governor of Massachusetts, the Council on Wage and
Price Stability, and the Council of Economic Advisors are all in the mainstream
of American thought, and my colleagues and I are not.
-Ian C. T. Nisbet, "Who Are Those
Environmentalists, Anyway?" Technology
R~VIPW
Of course, the argument did not end here. Although Nisbet could not
defend his own side fully, he could attack the other.
We are not recommending that you disguise strong conviction as modest tentativeness, that you say "I may be wrong" when you are sure you
have powerful arguments on your side. Nor are we suggesting that arguing
from weakness or incomplete evidence is wise. A claim of modesty is no
excuse for not having done the research, not having thought the issues
356
through, not having listened to the arguments on all sides. Yet even after
we have done all the work that an honest conscience demands, most of us
still have much to be modest about.
The Overall Effects of Conviction and Moderation

In accommodation, every gain has a corresponding loss. The stronger the
conviction you convey, the less moderation. When an audience senses
your intransigence, your stubbornness, they naturally perceive you as
less moderate. And when you open your arms to every point of view,
your fidelity to your own becomes questionable. Striking a balance is
possible if the arguer, poised in the middle, is thoroughly convinced of
his or her own position while understanding and acknowledging the
other side.
We do not want to suggest that a middle-of-the-road position is at all
times and in all circumstances the best. Tipping the balance in one direction or the other is often legitimate. With some audiences and some topics,
strong conviction may wisely dominate moderation, as when, for instance,
you have a strong argument on your side or a willing audience. O n the
other hand, a moderate stance may be preferable when your audience has
doubts about you or your argument. Imagine yourself arguing a proposal
for coed dorms with two different audiences and see how your natural
sense of accommodation would favor an impression of conviction or one
of moderation. To an audience of students, predisposed to favor coed
dorms, conviction will ride high and may proclaim itself in statements like
this: "Certainly we have a right to have coed dorms. We are mature,
responsible adults. We don't need babysitters anymore. We need to interact freely with our peers. Those fuddy-duddies on the board of trustees
with their antiquated morality don't know that times have changed." But
to an audience of parents, a tone of moderation ought to prevail: "Coed
dorms do require greater maturity and responsibility from their residents,
but that is exactly why they are a good idea. All major universities now
have them, and they are optional. No one has to live in a coed dorm against
his or her will." Note that all these reasons for coed dorms are really
answers to objections against them. We expect this kind of response from
a moderate position; it anticipates the objections of its audience, treats
them respectfully, and replies to them reasonably.
Our best advice, then, is that you should be aware of the connected
effectsof moderation and conviction. Since you gain an excess of one only
at the expense of the other, you should know what you are sacrificing.
ACCOMMODATION
. 3S7
Disclaimers: Don't Get the Wrong Idea About

Me or My Argument
What would people think of you if you proposed cross-country travel by
pneumatic tube? O r mile-high skyscrapers? O r mandatory vegetarianism?
They would think you a dreamer or a fool, and if you ever wanted to argue
seriously for such fanciful proposals, you would have to begin by convincing your audience, "No, I am not a fool."
A claim that anticipates and answers an audience's negative reaction is
a disclaimer-a denial, a repudiation of what your audience is likely to think.
Disclaimers are useful in far more moderate arguments than the fanciful
proposals above. Any time your audience would be likely to think ill of
you, slap a label on you, put you in a box or category you do not want
to be in, you may need to deny before being accused.
Disclaimers are not very different from concessions. A concession anticipates a reader's assumption that you differ in every way from your
opposition. Similarly, a disclaimer disassociates you from a predictable
position, but it is usually personal, like the following from the author of
an extended criticism of the 1980 census who nevertheless feels called on
to disclaim a thoroughly negative attitude.
I have been one of the Bureau's most loyal fans. I have written two books
and numerous articles based on Census materials, for which I will be forever
grateful. Not only that, I find that its reports make splendid bedtime reading.
-Andrew Hacker, "The No-Account
Census," Harper >
Hacker does not want to be accused of crankiness. Rather, he wants to

show that though he chastens the Census Bureau, he has warm feelings
toward it.
Is there danger in making a disclaimer? Yes, if you disclaim an accusation that your audience would never have thought of. You would not deny
being an embezzler when you applied for a job as a bank teller if your
prospective employer had no reason to suspect you. You would not disclaim that your proposal is unrealistic if your audience is not likely to think
it so. Making a disclaimer, then, requires a very accurate sense of audience.
ElJlOTION IN ARGUMENT
The reasonableness we have been advocating need not be a cold virtue.
The good person who argues well may also be the sensitive person who
358
has emotional conviction, who feels anger, pity, fear, or warmth over an
issue. Such emotion can be conveyed to the reader as an aid to, though
never a substitute for, rational conviction. As servant of the premises,
emotion is conveyed in carefully chosen words and examples.
Careful Word Choice

Many words are bristly. They have a core of meaning and a surface that
produces feelings or sensations in the reader. A simple term like ice cream
refers to a frozen confection of cream, sugar, and flavoring and for most
of us evokes pleasant memories and happy anticipations. A word like
cancer, on the other hand, produces as much fear as meaning. In argument
you should make the good and bad associations of words work for you to
transfer appropriate emotions to your audience.
When you have a choice among a set of words that have approximately
the same meaning but different associations, choose the one with appropriate associations for your audience and argument. If, for example, you are
arguing with adults for kinder treatment of teenagers who break the law,
you would not refer to them as "juvenile delinquents" or "young criminals," terms with harsh associations. You would do better to call them
"youthful offenders" or "problem teenagers," words with more neutral
associations, or even "disturbed children," a term that calls for sympathy.
If you want to avoid a certain word, you can directly substitute for it
a more neutral or more attractive word. The substitution word is called a
euphemism. Or you can use a different word or phrase that is at the same
time more precise and less offensive. Another possibility is to avoid a label
or single term altogether, and take the long way around in several sentences. Thus, word choice is not only a matter of substituting one synonym
for another; it can also affect the content or length of your argument.
Euphemism
A euphemism is a substitution, a word that takes the place of one that has
unpleasant or unacceptable associations. Euphemisms abound whenever
the subject is war, politics, human categorization, death, or private bodily
functions. Direct or embarrassing reference to these topics can hurt. Consideration for an audience often means that a reference must be sweetened;
the reader eats it anyway, but it tastes better.
When is it legitimate to use a euphemism and when is it not? It all
depends on the situation, the purpose, and the audience. Euphemisms
often replace words that an audience would find crude or socially taboo.
For example, unless you want to shock or offend in order to serve some
more important purpose, you would never say consolingly to a friend,
ACCOMMODATlON
359
"Your father died last week, didn't he?" Your sense of decency would lead
you to make some less direct statement like "Sorry to hear about your
father." When, on the other hand, the situation is impersonal, it may be
more appropriate to use the direct word. You would not, for instance,
write, "Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both passed away to the great
beyond on July 4, 1826." No audience's sensitivities need be considered;
no eyes will fill with tears if you simply say that both men died. The topic
of death is a twentieth-century taboo, while other ages and places had or
have their own undiscussable subjects. For example, the Victorians never
referred to a woman as "pregnant"; she was, instead, "soon to be confined." We laugh at them now while we respect our own taboos.
Similarly, certain euphemisms for classes of human beings have come
into use to replace labels that had offensive suggestions. For example, we
now prefer to call people over sixty-five "senior citizens" rather than "the
aged." "Senior citizens" has desirable suggestions of activity, respect, and
responsibility. Likewise, a "retarded" child is often called an "exceptional"
or "special" child, a garbage collector is a "sanitary worker," a janitor
becomes a "custodian," and an undertaker is a "mortician" or a "funeral
director." Because language changes over time, a term that is merely descriptive to one generation becomes offensive to the next. Some of the
newer labels may sound strained or stilted to you right now. Time will
either bring them into common usage or discard them.
However, euphemisms that conceal the ugly realities of oppression or
the underhanded dealings of any group are immoral. It is inexcusable to
call concentration camps "temporary detainment centers," when innocent
civilians are forcibly incarcerated for undefined periods of time. And
politicians should not call their vacations at taxpayer expense "fact-finding
missions" or claim "franking privileges" that they dare not call free mail.
If you are engaged in an argument that requires hiding ugly realities or
moral shadiness of any kind, then you are engaged in an argument you
should not be making.
Perhaps this advice sounds excessively idealistic. You may agree that
individuals, responsible to their own conscience alone, can take high moral
stands. But, you might ask, what about someone who is speaking not for
one but for a nation? Wouldn't such a spokesperson be justified in concealing ugly realities for the sake of a higher aim such as national security? In
time of war, for example, wouldn't it be wiser to call a lost battle "strategic
withdrawal" rather than "defeat"?
No, it would not be wiser. Let's consider this example, which is the
toughest, and explore why even a government at war, and by extension
any arguer, should tell the truth. A "strategic withdrawal" implies an
intentional retreat or a planned regrouping of forces rather than a military
loss. Of course, a government that has to admit a lost battle is in a difficult
position. It is torn between giving accurate information and sustaining the
360
wartime morale of its people. Yet it can do both with careful word choice.
The lost battle might honestly be called a "temporary setback," a phrase
that admits defeat but not its finality. We are here getting into ethical
matters that require patient untangling. Nevertheless, we maintain that a
euphemism that actually lies is wrong. Avoiding it with carefully chosen
words that do not lie is always possible and in the long run always wiser.
A well-informed nation can make wiser choices, engage in better public
debate, and have more confidence in its government than one that is kept
in the dark. And a government can be honest without giving away details
of national security. A public that knows, for example, that its government
has strategic missiles in place need not know exactly where they are. What
holds true for the government spokesperson, weighted down by moral
responsibility, certainly holds true for any arguer.
More Particular Substitutions

At times it may be possible to replace an undesirable word with an equivalent that is both more precise and less offensive to an audience. This kind
of substitution, still a euphemism really, accomplishes two good endsavoiding the word with bad associations and conveying more information.
Suppose you are a teacher explaining the causes of a child's failure to
a parent. Would you call the child "dumb" or "stupid"? Not only would
you avoid hurting the parent with such a harsh word, you would also try
to inform the parent more precisely what the problem is. You would say
that the child has trouble paying attention, that he learns slowly, even that
he has a learning disability if he does-anything but the vague, unhelpful
label. Similarly, no one likes to be called "lower class." Class distinctions
are not supposed to exist in this country, so we replace this insulting term
with more precise descriptive labels, referring instead to "unskilled labor,"
"welfare recipients," "the unemployed," "the underemployed," or the
working poor." All these terms make more precise distinctions on the
basis of income; they help us avoid permanent stereotyping into class. It
is, after all, possible to stop being a "welfare recipient," but less possible
to stop being "lower class."
I,
Periphrasis or Circumlocution: Taking the Long Way Around

Sometimes when you are trying to avoid a sensitive word or phrase or issue
in an argument, no direct substitution will help. Instead, you must take the
long way around the matter in a series of sentences. The Greek word
periphrasis and the Latin word circumlocution both mean taking many words
to say what could be said in few. Such wordiness, as long as it does not
obscure, is not dishonest. Meaning is not hidden, but lengthened and
ACCOMMODATION
361
softened. Periphrasis can be pompous and long-winded, but it can also be

useful at times when any single word or short phrase would work against
you.
Imagine yourself as a personnel director in the awkward situation of
having evaluated a good friend's qualifications for a job and found them
wanting. You have bad news to deliver and there is no euphemism for no.
You could just blurt out "no job" and get it over with, but another choice
is available. You can let the message emerge from a lengthy sequence in
which you explain the qualifications of other candidates, the budget constraints you are working with, your plans for the future, and how much
your friend has always meant to you. This tactic is periphrasis.
Emotion in Example Choice

You already know from the sections on generalizations and causal arguments that examples can be part of the structure of your argument. Examples tie your thesis to reality, but they can have another function as well.
They are the best place to make a direct appeal to your audience's emotions, and these invitations to the audience's fear, pity, anger, love, disgust,
pride, and laughter are ways of accommodating, of bringing an argument
to an audience.
Examples are effective magnets for the various emotions, pulling sympathetic responses out of readers and drawing them toward your argument, because people all respond with the most immediacy to anything
made present to their sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. Let us go back
to our favorite old thesis, "My roommate is a slob," to illustrate our point
here. Suppose you are going to support this thesis with the example of
your roommate's bed. You could simply say, "Her bed is a mess," or you
could develop the example in more detail:
The gray sheets are rumpled and the edges trailing on the floor are brown;
if you happen to touch a sheet it feels gritty from sand and ancient cracker
crumbs. The pillow smells gamy as though the chicken feathers in it were not
quite clean, and when 1 venture on her side of the room, a stale, acidic smell
reaches me.
This example, rendered in concrete imagery, should arouse disgust in

apy reader. Just as most people respond with revulsion to unclean beds,
you can similarly count on the general effectiveness of some emotional
appeals. Images of starving refugees cast adrift in frail boats in the ocean
arouse pity for them and anger at those who caused their plight. Examples
of homeless children and lonely old people upset anyone who reads about
362
them, and many of those hard to move about their own species respond
to bedraggled kittens, loyal dogs, and noble horses. O n the positive side,
you can count on consistent human delight with chortling babies, sunshine, flowers, plentiful food, and warm homes.
Whenever you use an example with emotional appeal, you aim not only
for your audience's mental assent to your argument, but also for their
emotional conviction. This "yes" of the heart is no replacement for the
"yes" of the head, but it is a powerful stimulus to agreement, and to action
if your argument is a proposal. So by all means use examples when you
can be sure that the emotion they evoke will work for you.
But be sure. Aside from some obvious and often stale examples, such
as those listed above, many will not have universal emotional appeal. You
might produce not the emotion that will reinforce your argument, but its
opposite instead. If, for example, you tried to persuade hunters that their
sport was evil and should be prohibited, they would probably be unmoved
by any examples of deer shot down and dying, bleeding in the snow, and
not at all disgusted by graphic descriptions of field dressing. And farmers
who raise thousands of chickens would laugh at examples that elevate
them to the level of feeling creatures in order to serve an argument against
factory farming. Chickens just don't move them that way.
Whenever you use examples of less extreme forms of human suffering,
some audiences may remain unmoved by the emotional appeal. Veteran
teachers feel little pity when bleary-eyed students tell them they have
studied all night for this exam or that paper. Professionals who treat or
work with the mentally ill, the sick, or the severely retarded have learned
to resist painful emotional involvement, although one such case brought
to the attention of an uninitiated audience might bring tears to the eyes.
Now think of the positive reactions inspired by examples with emotional appeal. Here responses are even less predictable. You know what it
is like to have a joke fall flat, to have a pleasant story shrugged off, to have
a double meaning taken singly. A proposal often hinges on creating a
pleasant image of future good results, a positive evaluation of the picture
you paint in words. Suppose you are evaluating different kinds of classrooms, the traditional and the open. If you are arguing that the traditional
classroom is best, you will describe the orderly rows of desks, the quiet of
children absorbed in work, the way the children lift their heads and all
look at the teacher when she is talking, and the A papers tacked up neatly
on bulletin boards. You hope that your readers will find this example
pleasant and agree with your evaluation. But many prefer the kind of
classroom where children are moving around, where the noise level is
many decibels above silence, where the teacher is not easy to find, and the
room is a bit cluttered, supposedly a sign of creativity. Your example of
the traditional classroom might strike them as authoritarian and cold.
ACCOMMODATION
363
Try to choose examples whose emotional appeal you can count on for
a particular audience, but remember that many audiences are mixed, presenting a wide range of attitudes toward your issue. Some readers will be
ready to agree before you start, and others will be far, far away. But
because those who disagree are hardest to convince, it is best to aim your
examples at them. Those who agree will come along anyway.
If you are at all unsure, if you have any suspicion that an example might
work against you, two options are open to you. First, you can simply take
it out. Second, you can leave it in but "frame" it. Anticipate the possible
negative response to your example, raise it yourself, and refute it. In the
case of classroom evaluation, you might follow the description of the
traditional setting with a sentence like this: "Many people find a quiet,
orderly classroom too cold and structured." After raising this objection you
might continue immediately with a refutation: "But warmth does not come
from pink walls, clutter, and the kind of noise that keeps the easily distracted child from learning."
Other Places Emotion Can Appear

Emotion is contained not only in examples but also in individual words.
To describe someone else's proposal as "heartless" and your own as "humane" is to make a play for your readers' emotions. You can choose direct
emotional labels, adding words like unfair, disgusting, cruel, pitiful, joyous, or
pleasant to shape an emotional reaction to what the words describe. Readers
will sense a large difference between a "policeman," a "jolly policeman,"
and a "menacing policeman." It makes a difference whether you describe
a meeting as just a meeting, or as "angry," "tense," or "friendly."
O r you can choose words that do not describe an emotion directly but
are nonetheless charged with emotional associations. For some audiences
fascist, communist, atheist, left/right wing, mother, home, and school are as emotional
as pain and joy. We are not, however, recommending that you sprinkle your
argument with meaningless emotional salt.
When Is an Emotional Appeal Legitimate in Argument?

Let's begin with a reminder: No argument should depend entirely on
emotional appeal. If it were possible to put into words an attempt to
convince an audience that was nothing but emotional manipulation, the
result would not really be an argument. The very nature of argument is
appeal to reason. It is not illegitimate to appeal to your reader's emotions,
but appeals to the emotions can only supplement appeals to reason; they
cannot replace them. Even when the emotional appeal reaches the reader
first and is quite strong, the mind should also be engaged.
364
FOR YOU TO ANALYZE

T h e following passage uses emotional appeals i n a variety of ways. Locate
t h e words a n d examples in which emotion resides. Given t h e t y p e of
argument, t o w h a t extent d o t h e emotional appeals seem legitimate?
From a letter t o a state senator proposing a change i n adoption laws:
I am writing on behalf of a minority of people who are quietly struggling to

achieve what they, and I too believe is a basic human right, yet which present
legislation denies them. The minority I speak of are the millions of people in
this country who were adopted as children, and now, as adults, find the attitudes and policies surrounding adoption to be discriminatory and detrimental
to their well-being.
I was not adopted, nor do I even know many people who were, but as a
student who has done research on the subject of adoption for a class, I can
empathize with anyone who feels that existing adoption laws should be modified, if not radically changed.
The formation of adoptees' liberation groups (such as ALMA) within the
past decade has brought adoption laws and practices to the public eye. Under
attack, especially by adoptees and activists, is the practice of sealing the original
birth records at the time an adoption is finalized. This procedure has not been
altered since the early 1940's. It has been a widely held belief that all parties
involved in an adoption-the typically unwed mother, the usually illegitimate
child, and the adoptive parents-need the protection of lifelong secrecy to start
successful new lives. This assurance of secrecy may seem like a great idea for
a scared and pregnant teenager, a hopeful adoptive couple, and an illegitimate
baby, but what about this "baby" who is now ei hteen or twenty and feels as
though a piece of himself is missing-the piece c lled "heritage" or "identity"?
An adoptee may simply desire information c cerning his nationality, origins, or pertinent medical history. This informati n is basic to identity formation, yet it would be denied to him by almost any adoption agency in this
country. In an effort to gain knowledge about their pasts, some adoptees begin
seeking their natural parents and embark on what has come to be called "The
Search." Long thought of by social workers and adoption agencies as an indication of emotional problems or the couple's failure as parents, the search is really
a need for identity and not a neurotic hunt for love.
FOR YOU TO WRITE
1. Visit your local SPCA and investigate the conditions and treatment of ani-
mals available for adoption. Write a positive or negative evaluation of the
ACCOMMODATION
. 365
conditions there for one of the following audiences: the director of the SPCA,
or a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. If your evaluation is negative, write an argument addressed to students urging them not to abandon
pets carelessly at the end of the school year. Or write what would be, in
effect, an advertising brochure, urging people to adopt one or more of the
particular animals in the shelter.
2. Visit a nursery school, day-care center, nursing home, or hospital and write
an argument characterizing it, based on your impressions. Remember that

your evidence will be incomplete, so your characterization will be carefully
qualified. However, if you know any of these institutions intimately, perhaps
from working in one, you might attempt a full-scale evaluation.
3. Imagine that you are ultimately proposing some improvement in the financial support of students to an audience of university or state officials. Your
opening demonstration section will have to support the thesis that "some
students live difficult, financially strained lives." Write that section using
specific examples to evoke your audience's sympathy.
4. Try to convince an audience that differs from you in age, education, or life
style that some activity you enjoy is fun. Remember that your aim is to
convince that audience of your evaluation and perhaps encourage them to
participate, not just to expose your personal taste.
VARIATION IN ARRANGEMENT
The Size of the Argumentative Unit
We are about to discuss how to move around the parts of an argument in
order to accommodate it to an audience. Questions of arrangement and
rearrangement often come up in the revision process, after the necessary
parts of an argument have been created. First, we need to define the size
of the parts we are moving around. Are we moving bricks, walls, or whole
houses-sentences, paragraphs, or chapters in a book? After all, an argument for a proposition can vary in length from a paragraph to a volume
(although an argument that requires a volume of support sits on top of a
pyramid of smaller arguments).
For convenience we are going to frame our advice about arrangement
for arguments of about 1,000 words. This is about the size of a substantial
student theme, a short article in a magazine, or a newspaper column-long
enough to support a single thesis convincingly and short enough to be read
all at once. But this advice will tend to hold for major term papers, long
reports, chapters in books, and even whole books, because any piece of
writing that exists as a discrete unit ultimately serves one thesis. The parts
may be bigger, but you move them around for the same reasons.
366
Where to Put the Thesis

A major organizational concern for you as an arguer is where to reveal to
your reader the main point you are trying to support, the thesis of your
argument. Where the thesis actually appears is an accommodation choice;
the actual substance of your argument is determined by the kind of thesis
you are supporting. Your first thought might be that the thesis always
belongs in the beginning; you may even have learned somewhere that in
a five-paragraph essay it should be the last sentence of the first paragraph.
But any advice that allows only one way to arrange a piece of writing is
not taking audience into account. Actually, you can put your thesis anywhere-up front, at the end, somewhere in the middle-or even nowhere
at all, depending on how your audience will probably respond to your
topic.
Thesis "Up Front"

"Up front" means in the first paragraph of a 1,000-word argument, if not
in the title of the piece itself. Once again, this early position seems to be
the natural place to put the thesis, and it often is. You announce to your
reader what you are arguing for, mention the major points of your argument, and then go ahead with detailed support. Now let's think about the
value of that "spill the beans" approach and in what situations it is appropriate.
The basic effect of thesis "up front" is to give your audience a framework on which to hang all subsequent arguments. If readers know what
thesis is being supported right from the beginning, then everything else
they go on to read is placed in relation to that thesis. It is as though the
readers were doing a puzzle in a frame ready-made to contain all the pieces
with the shape of each stamped on the cardboard bottom.
Our metaphor describes the way children learn to do puzzles. We can
continue the metaphor to help characterize the audience of an argument
with its thesis up front. Children who have never done puzzles need an
outline or frame so that they can see the goal of their task. An audience
that is uninformed on a topic or one that takes no stand on an issue may
want the purpose of the whole argument, the thesis, set out in the beginning. Otherwise they may be impatient with a heap of pieces or parts and
no way to relate them. For instance, what do you make of these two
paragraphs rich in detail?
French fried potatoes, for example, may also be restructured. Processors take
whole raw potatoes apart, cell by cell, and blend them with other ingredients.
The mixture, reshaped into uniform pieces, is then frozen and shipped to feeding institutions, especially fast-food chains and schools. The produce is de-
ACCOMMODATION
. 367
scribed as uniform in flavor, texture, color, and appearance 12 months a year,

for all the variations have been controlled. The rationale for using this process
is that ascorbic acid, added to the blend, is retained sufficiently to meet requirements for the school lunch program. The possible losses of other nutrients in
the potato, owing to this harsh treatment, are ignored.
Onion rings may also be restructured-from inexpensive dehydrated onion,
first reconstituted in water and then added to a matrix mix that acts as a "skin
setting" bath. The blend, pumped into an extruding machine, forms uniform
onion ring-shaped products.
-The
Christian Scienrt. Monitor
You don't know whether to pay attention to the process of restructuring

food, the ascorbic acid, the school lunch program, or the nutrition. You are
given plenty of information, but no frame to place it in. Actually, these two
paragraphs are the second and third in an argument. Now read the following paragraph, the first, which gives the claim that the examples support:
The restructuring of potato chips, made from dehydrated potatoes, was a
well-publicized technological feat. What is unknown by many consumers is
that numerous other foods are being restructured without being recognized as
different from their traditional counterparts.
If you go back and reread what are actually the second and third paragraphs, the details will no longer confuse you. They fit under the umbrella
of the general statement that "foods are being restructured without being
recognized as different."
Not only does the thesis u p front give coherence to the supporting
points that follow, it can also grab the interest of an indifferent audience.
Any piece of writing has to begin with a hook to catch a reader, and the
thesis of an argument, given all at once, can do the grabbing, especially if
there is something daring about it. Most of us would want to read about
something that has been hidden from us, like the restructuring of food.
In general, then, putting the thesis first is wise when your readers need
the help of a frame to make sense of the points in an argument that is either
very detailed or very complicated. Also, if you think your thesis will
intrigue uninformed or neutral readers, put it up front.
Thesis at the Very End

Some writers wait until the very end of an argument to disclose its thesis.
They may even set up a tentative thesis in the beginning and then replace
it at the conclusion with a better one. This tactic may seem odd. W h y keep
the reader in doubt about the claim that is being supported? After all, you
lose the advantage of that frame to fit pieces into, and you may even try
your readers' patience. Instead, to pick up our puzzle metaphor again, you
368
give readers a pile of pieces with no indication of the shape or size of the
final picture they are to complete. They must patiently fit piece to piece
until all at once the final picture emerges.
But that creation of the final picture may be just the effect you want.
The "thesis at the end" dramatizes the compelling order and nature of the
support for an argument and the inevitability of its conclusion. This technique can work well with a hostile or resistant audience who will not
bother to read an argument if they know from the first it is for a thesis they
reject. But if they can be led to pick up the pieces one by one, they are made
to complete the puzzle almost without realizing it. They themselves put
the final piece in place and may come close to accepting your argument.
The catch in this method is that the pieces have to be so well shaped
that they fit together in only one way to form only one picture. That is,
the parts of the argument had better lead to one and only one conclusion,
or else your readers, who have been forming tentative theses all along, may
come to the end with one in mind that is quite different from yours.
Certain kinds of arguments do well with the thesis at the end. A truncated proposal, for instance, comes sensibly at the end of an argument
giving all the reasons why "something" should be done. Readers won't
acknowledge the need for action until they know what the problem is.
Similarly, a causal argument can sometimes hold back its thesis the way
a detective mystery holds back both the identity of the murderer and his
motives. This postponing works because causal argument, like a detective
story, can take readers through the reasoning or discovery process that the
author has gone through. Readers are compelled to track down the common factor or the single difference, to eliminate one by one the rival causes
or to pull in every link in a chain until the important cause is identified.
Holding back the thesis and emphasizing the process makes the conclusion
of a causal argument seem all the more inevitable.
It is also possible, though not common except in short arguments, to
save for the end the generalization that draws together a number of examples. Such a conclusion must strike readers as the sum of all the parts or
examples that have preceded it, not one that requires careful definition. It
must be as self-evident as the 6 at the end of 2
2
2.
+ +
Thesis Somewhere Along the Way

Actually, you can put your thesis anywhere you want. The only requirements are that you know why you put it where you put it, and that the
why be the result of consideration of audience and purpose. Just as there
are reasons for beginning or ending with the thesis, there are also good
reasons for postponing it a bit in order to prepare the readers. Often the
thesis can wait a paragraph or two while you make a play for your readers'
attention or appeal overtly to their emotion. You open with an example,
ACCOMMODATION
369
a clever quotation, a witty paradox, a knotty problem to be solved, or an

emotional appeal. You can begin by spending some time talking about
yourself, establishing your authority to be making the argument in the first
place, or by characterizing and refuting your opposition. All these tactics
are good fanfare before the thesis appears front and center stage.
Another reason to postpone the thesis a paragraph or two in the 1,000word argument is to take time to define crucial terms. Suppose you are
arguing that "the rich are different from the rest of us." Before springing
that thesis on your audience, you might want to stake out what you mean
by "the rich." Everyone knows that someone who is rich has lots of money,
but how much? Is someone "rich" who earns over $50,000, over $100,000,
or over $500,000 a year? If you define rich before declaring your thesis, you
may have a much easier time making your thesis acceptable.
You may also find it necessary to put off your thesis for a while, if not
to the end, in order to disarm the predictable hostility it will arouse in your
readers. You may talk directly to readers for a paragraph or two, saying
in effect, "Yes, I know that you have strong opinions on this subject, but
wait and hear me out." Or you can try to find some common ground, some
matter on which you and your hostile audience do agree, in order to draw
them toward you in the beginning of your argument. If, for instance, your
hostile readers are Republicans and you are a Democrat, you can at least
remind them that you are all Americans. Or if your audience is for Medicare and you are against it, you can remind them that you are both concerned with the welfare of the aged.
No Thesis at All
Strange as it may sound, you can argue vehemently for a thesis precisely
formulated in your mind that never appears explicitly in your argument.
Of course, it must appear eventually in your readers' minds as well (if you
have argued well), but for various reasons you have kept it off the page.
Perhaps putting it in would seem like an overstatement, for the evidence
is so strong readers can frame it for themselves. Perhaps the actual bald
statement of the thesis would shock the readers. A series of very vivid
examples, even one extended example, can yield a thesis even though that
thesis is never written down. A writer provides a list of examples like the
following:
A restaurant in New England serves what the menu calls "Maine lobster."
But the lobster had actually been a resident of the New Jersey shore. Another
restaurant advertises "home made apple pies," but the chef does not live in the
kitchen where he baked them. Often the "butter" on the menu is margarine,
the "freshly whipped cream" a vegetable substitute, and the "scrambled eggs"
are made from powdered eggs.
370
Readers could formulate to themselves the generalization that emerges

from these examples: Some restaurant menus misrepresent the food actually served.
The thesis that might shock a particular audience is sometimes wisely
withheld; instead, the readers are guided by a carefully structured argument to verbalize the suppressed thesis to themselves. Some ideas look too
extreme and are too easy to reject when a hostile audience sees them in
writing. If you face an accommodation struggle that would be like climbing
a perpendicular rock face, you might give up altogether the appearance of
argument and simply present your reasons as though they were a series of
gentle observations. Suppose, for instance, you really want to argue with
the super-successful football coach and his staff that the football program
is worthless, even detrimental. Want to try it? The ink would congeal in
your pen. The most you could come up with would be a series of milder
theses about the program's waste of money, time, and effort. You might
hope that your readers would extend the implications of your argument,
or extrapolate from your milder points to a stronger thesis. But that thesis
itself, "The football program should be abolished," might remain unwritable for the audience that enjoys or makes its living from football.
FOR YOU TO ANALYZE

Here are some short arguments. Identify the thesis in each and, taking
audience into account, explain the accommodation devices used by the
author.
WHAT NEXT FOR THE BOOMERS? THE NEW SERIOUSNESS!
Ever since the stock market went to the bathroom last fall, a lot of us have
been pretty busy-talking our broker pals down from window ledges and
convincing friends in the junk bond business to shut off the Porsche and open
the garage door. We've been so busy that we may not have noticed Black
Monday, Blue Tuesday, Black and Blue Wednesday, etc. marked the end of an
era. Neopoverty means curtains for the Yuppies, a.k.a. the Me Generation, a.k.a.
the Now Generation, a.k.a.the Dr. Spock Brats. Everybody born between WWII
and the early '60s is finally going to have to grow up. It's all over now, Baby
Boom.
Of course, the collapse of the Reagan Pig-Out wasn't the only thing that did
us Boomers in. There was massive drug-taking, which turned out to be a bad
ACCOMMODATION
. 371
idea. Maybe drugs make you a better person, but only if you believe in heaven
and think John Belushi could get past the doorman. And having sex with
everyone we could think of-this broke up our first two marriages and gave
most of us chronic venereal diseases and the rest of us obituaries. And then there
was us, just being ourselves-"finding out who we are," "getting in touch with
our feelings," "fulfilling our true inner potential1'-frightening
stuff. You'll
notice that now we're all running out to see Fatal Attraction so we can moon over
a nuclear family and cheer for traditional morals. It seems like that boring
middle-class suburbia where we grew up was swell after all. The problem is,
we've spent all our money on cocaine and Reeboks and we can't afford it.
What went wrong? We were the generation of hope; the generation that was
going to change the world; the biggest, richest, best-educated generation in the
history of America-the biggest, richest, best-educated spot in this or any other
galaxy. Nothing was too good for us. It took thousands of doctors and psychiatrists to decide whether we should suck our thumbs or all our toes, too. Our
every childhood fad had global implications. One smile at Davy Crockett and
the forests of the temperate zone were denuded in the search for raccoon-tail
hats. When we took up Hula Hoops, the planet bobbled in its orbit. Our
transistor radios drowned out the music of the spheres. A sniffle from us and
Lifp magazine was sick in bed for a month. All we had to do was hold a sit-in
and governments were toppled from the Peking of Mao Tse-tung to the Cleveland of Dennis Kucinich. "We are the world," we shouted just a couple of years
ago. And just a couple of years ago we were. How did we wind up so old? So
fat? So confused? So broke?
The truth is our generation was spoiled rotten from the start. We spent the
entire 1950s on our butts in front of the television while mom fed us Twinkies
and Ring-Dings through strawberry Flavor Straws and dad ransacked the toy
stores looking for 100 mph streamlined Schwinns, Daisy air howitzers, Lionel
train sets larger than the New York Central system, and other novelties to keep
us amused during the few hours when Pinky Lee and My Friend Flirka weren't
on the air.
When we came of age in the 1960s, we found the world wasn't as perfect
as Mr. Greenjeans and Mrs. Cleaver said it would be, and we threw a decadelong temper tantrum. We screamed at our parents, our teachers, the police, the
president, Congress and the Pentagon. We threatened to hold our breath (as
long as the reefer stayed lit) and not to cut our hair until poverty, war and
injustice were stopped.
That didn't work. So we whiled away the '70s in an orgy of hedonism and
self-absorption, bouncing from ashram to bedroom to disco to gym at a speed
made possible only by ingesting vast quantities of Inca Scratch-N-Sniff.
Even this proved unsatisfying, so we elected President Reagan and tried our
hand at naked greed. We could have it all-career, marriage, job, children,
BMW, Rolex, compact disc player, another marriage, more children, and a
high-growth, high-yield, no-load mutual fund. Actually, for a while, it looked
like we could have it all. As long as we didn't mind also having a national debt
the size of the Crab Nebula, an enormous underclass making its living from
5-cent beverage can deposits and currency that the Japanese use to blow their
372
nose. But now our economy has the willi-waws, and our Youth Culture has
arthritis, Alzheimer's and gout. Life's big Visa card bill has come due at last.
The Baby Boom has reached middle age. It's time for us to pause, time to
reflect, time to . . . OH, GOD, DARLING DON'T D O IT WITH A GUN-WE
JUST REDECORATED THE BATHROOM!!! . . . time to evaluate the contributions that we, as a generation, have made to a world which presented us with
so many unique advantages. Contributions such as . . . uh . . . um . . .
BZZZZZZZZZ Time's Up! Well, some of the Beatles' songs are really great.
(Although, technically, the Beatles aren't part of the Baby Boom.) And there's
the first Tom Robbins novel, "Another Roadside Attraction." That was good,
I think. I mean I was very stoned when I read it. And . . . and . . . New Coke?
Wait a minute, 1 hear dissenting noises. Civil rights, you say? But the civil
rights movement was founded by people a lot older than us. Harriet Tubman,
for instance. We Boomers did start the Peace Movement. That was a big success.
The Vietnam War only lasted another eight or 10 years, once we got the Peace
Movement going. Then, darn it, the Communists took over South Vietmam,
Laos and Cambodia and killed everybody they could get their hands on just like
Gen. Westmoreland, that pig, said they would. So I don't think we can count
the Peace Movement as a major contribution, especially not as far as the former
citizens of Phnom Penh are concerned. Our political commitment, however,
really changed things. You can tell by the quality of the presidents we used to
have, such as Truman and Eisenhower, compared with the quality of the presidents we got as soon as the Baby Boom was old enough to vote, such as Carter
and Reagan. And our idealism has made a difference. Ever since Live-Aid, all
the Ethiopians have had to do the Jane Fonda work-out to keep from larding
up around the middle.
It is true that our generation was the first to take feminism seriously. That's
because old-timey feminists used to worry about boring things like voting
rights and legal status. But Boomer Women put some real life in the issues by
emphasizing upscale grabbiness, pointless careerism and insane arguments
about pronoun antecedents. Fitness is another trend pioneered by the Boom.
Millions of us are leading empty, useless, pitiful lives and lifting weights and
eating fiber to make those lives last longer. Also, the computer revolution-we
invented a brilliant matrix of complex and intricate software programs which
allow us to compile, cross-reference and instantly access all the nothing that we
know. Finally, there's our creativity-our wild, innovative, original artistic
gifts-surely a legacy to the ages. Huh? Huh? Sorry, I couldn't hear you. I had
the new L. L. Cool J "Bigger and Deffer" tape turned all the way u p on my
Walkman.
Let's face it, our much-vaunted rebellion against bourgeois values meant we
didn't want to clean the bathroom. All our mystical enlightenments are now
printed in Hallmark greeting cards with pictures of unicorns on them. Our
intellectual insights led to a school system that hasn't taught anybody how to
read in 15 years. All we've done for the disadvantaged is gentrify the crap out
of their neighborhoods. And now we're about to lose our jobs.
Do we have any skills or anything? No. Complain, play Donkey Kong, and
roll joints with E-Z Wider papers are the only things this generation has ever
been able to do. Will anyone feel sorry for us? No. We've been making pests
ACCOMMODATION
373
of ourselves for four decades, hogging the limelight, making everybody feel
un-hip and out of it. The Earth has had a belly-ful of us. We'll be selling kiwi
fruit on the street and rattling microchips in a tin cup and people will laugh.
We're the generation whose heroes were Howdy Doody, Jerry Rubin, Big
Bird and lvan Boesky. We deserve the stock market crash, and herpes and the
Betty Ford Clinic, besides. We're jerks. We're clowns. We're 40 and still wearing
jeans. Nobody takes us seriously . . .
Wait a minute. Serious. That's it. Oh, man, this will really bug the squares!
What we do is we all start wearing dumpy corduroy sport coats and cheap, shiny
navy-blue wash pants and Hush Puppies. We get those stupid half-glasses and
wear them way down on the end of our nose. We read Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, Kant-all those guys. We call it 7 h e New Seriousness. The media will wig
out. We'll be all over network TV again.
Dig this-we start going to church, not Moonie church or born-again church
but real Episcopalian church, every Sunday. We invite each other over to afternoon teas and discuss the novels of Thomas Mann. We take up the cello. We
do the London Times crossword puzzle in ink. We admire Woody Allen's recent
movies. We vote in local elections.
We'll be crazy serious-international superstars of, like, heavy, pensive eggheadery. We fire David Letterman and replace him with Jean-Paul Sartre. (Is he
still alive? Well, somebody like that.) Shoot MTV videos for Handel and
Rimsky-Korsakov. Do a feature movie about the life of Euripides with the
sound track in ancient Greek. There are 76 million of us. Everybody's going to
want a books-on-tape cassette of Bertrand Russell and A. N. Whitehead's
Principia Mathematira for their car: We'll make a fortune! We'll be famous! And
we'll change the world!
7 l e New Seriousness-it's bitchin', it's far-out, it's rad to the max, it's us. Gotta
go now. Gotta call Merrill Lynch and buy stock in the Cleveland Symphony
Orchestra.
A PLEA FOR THE CHIMPANZEES

Jane Goodall
The chimpanzee is more like us, genetically, than any other animal. It is
because of similarities in physiology, in biochemistry, and in the immune system that medical science makes use of the living bodies of chimpanzees in its
search for cures and vaccines for a variety of human diseases.
There are also behavioral, psychological, and emotional similarities between
chimpanzees and humans, resemblances so striking that they raise a serious
ethical question: Are we justified in using an animal so close to us-an animal,
moreover, that is highly endangered in its African forest home-as a human
substitute in medical experimentation?
In the long run, we can hope that scientists will find ways of exploring
human physiology and disease, and of testing cures and vaccines, that do not
depend on the use of living animals of any sort. A number of steps in this
direction already have been taken, prompted in large part by a growing public
374
awareness of the suffering that is being inflicted on millions of animals. More

and more people are beginning to realize that nonhuman animals-even rats and
guinea pigs-are not just unfeeling machines but are capable of enjoying their
lives, and of feeling fear, pain, and despair.
But until alternatives have been found, medical science will continue to use
animals in the battle against human disease and suffering. And some of those
animals will continue to be chimpanzees.
Because they share with us 99 percent of their genetic material, chimpanzees
can be infected with some human diseases that do not infect other animals.
They are currently being used in research on the nature of hepatitis non-A
non-B, for example, and they continue to play a major role in the development
of vaccines against hepatitis B.
Many biomedical laboratories are looking to the chimpanzee to help them
in the race to find a vaccine against acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
Chimpanzees are not good models for AIDS research; although the AIDS virus
stays alive and replicates within the chimpanzee's bloodstream, no chimp has
yet come down with the disease itself. Nevertheless, many of the scientists
involved argue that only by using chimpanzees can potential vaccine; be safely
tested.
Given the scientists' professed need for animals in research, let us turn aside
from the sensitive ethical issue of whether chimpanzees should be used in medical research, and consider a more immediate issue: How are we treating the
chimpanzees that are actually being used?
Just after Christmas I watched, with shock, anger, and anguish, a videotapemade by an animal rights group during a raid-revealing the conditions in a
large biomedical research laboratory, under contract to the National Institutes
of Health, in which various primates, including chimpanzees, are maintained.
In late March, I was given permission to visit the facility.
It was a visit I shall never forget. Room after room was lined with small, bare
cages, stacked one above the other, in which monkeys circled round and round
and chimpanzees sat huddled, far gone in depression and despair.
Young chimpanzees, three or four years old, were crammed, two together,
into tiny cages measuring 57 cm by 57 cm and only 61 cm high. They could
hardly turn around. Not yet part of any experiment, they had been confined in
these cages for more than three months.
The chimps had each other for comfort, but they would not remain together
for long. Once they are infected, probably with hepatitis, they will be separated
and placed in another cage. And there they will remain, living in conditions of
severe sensory deprivation, for the next several years. During that time, they
will become insane.
A juvenile female rocked from side to side, sealed off from the outside world
behind the glass doors of her metal isolation chamber. She was in semidarkness.
All she could hear was the incessant roar of air rushing through vents into her
prison.
In order to demonstrate the "good" relationship the lab's caretaker had with
this chimpanzee, one of the scientists told him to lift her from the cage. The
caretaker opened the door. She sat, unmoving. He reached in. She did not greet
ACCOMMODATION
. 375
him-nor did he greet her. As if drugged, she allowed him to take her out. She
sat motionless in his arms. He did not speak to her, she did not look at him. He
touched her lips briefly. He returned her to her cage. She sat again on the bars
of the floor. The door closed.
I shall be haunted forever by her eyes, and by the eyes of the other infant
chimpanzees I saw that day. Have you ever looked into the eyes of a person
who, stressed beyond endurance, has given up, succumbed utterly to the crippling helplessness of despair? I once saw a little African boy whose whole
family had been killed during the fighting in Burundi. He too looked out at the
world, unseeing, from dull, blank eyes.
Though this particular laboratory may be one of the worst, from what 1 have
learned, most of the other biumedical animal-research facilities are not much
better. Yet only when one has some understanding of the true nature of the
chimpanzee can the cruelty of these captive conditions be fully understood.
An Isolating Cage
Chimpanzees are very social by nature. Bonds between individuals, particularly between family members and close friends, can be affectionate and supportive, and can endure throughout their lives. The accidental separation of two
friendly individuals can cause them intense distress. Indeed, the death of a
mother may be such a psychological blow to her child that even if the child is
five years old and no longer dependent on its mother's milk, it may pine away
and die.
It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of friendly physical contact
for the well-being of the chimpanzee. Again and again one can watch a frightened or tense individual relax if she is patted, kissed, or embraced reassuringly
by a companion. Social grooming, which provides hours of close contact, is
undoubtedly the single most important social activity.
Chimpanzees in their natural habitat are active for much of the day. They
travel extensively within their territory, which can be as large as 50 km2 for a
comn~unityof about 50 individuals. If they hear other chimpanzees calling as
they move through the forest, or anticipate arriving at a good food source, they
typically break into excited charging displays, racing along the ground, hurling
sticks and rocks and shaking the vegetation. Youngsters, particularly, are full
of energy, and spend long hours playing with one another or by themselves,
leaping through the branches and gamboling along the ground. Adults sometimes join these games. Bunches of fruit, twigs, and rocks may be used as toys.
Chimpanzees enjoy comfort. They construct sleeping platforms each night,
using a multitude of leafy twigs to make their beds soft. Often, too, they make
little "pillows" on which to rcst during a midday siesta.
Chimps are highly intelligent. They display cognitive abilities that were,
until recently, thought to be unique to humans. They are capable of cross-modal
transfer of information-that is, they can identify by touch a n object they have
previously only seen, and vice versa. They are capable of reasoned thought,
generalization, abstraction, and symbolic representation. They have some concept of self. They have excellent memories and can, to some extent, plan for the
future. They show a capacity for intentional communication that depends, in
376
part, on their ability to understand the motives of the individuals with whom
they are communicating.
Chimpanzees are capable of empathy and altruistic behavior. They show
emotions that are undoubtedly similar, if not identical, to human emotionsjoy, pleasure, contentment, anxiety, fear, and rage. They even have a sense of
humor.
The chimpanzee child and the human child are alike in many ways: in their
capacity for endless romping and fun; their curiosity; their ability to learn by
observation, imitation, and practice; and, above all, their need for reassurance
and love. When young chimpanzees are brought up in a human home and
treated like human children, they learn to eat at table, to help themselves to
snacks from the refrigerator, to sort and put away cutlery, to brush their teeth,
to play with dolls, to switch on the television and select a program that interests
them and watch it.
Young chimpanzees can easily learn over 200 signs of the American language
of the deaf and use these signs to communicate meaningfully with humans and
with one another. One youngster in the laboratory of Roger S. Fouts, a psychologist at Central Washington University, has picked up 68 signs from four older
signing chimpanzee companions, with no coaching from humans. The chimp
uses the signs in communication with other chimpanzees and with humans.
The chimpanzee facilities in most biomedical research laboratories allow for
the expression of almost none of these activities and behaviors. They provide
little-if anything-more than the warmth, food and water, and veterinary care
required to sustain life. The psychological and emotional needs of these creatures are rarely catered to, and often not even acknowledged.
In most labs the chimpanzees are housed individually, one chimp to a cage,
unless they are part of a breeding program. The standard size of each cage is
about 7.6
and about 1.8 m high. In one facility, a cage described in the
catalogue as "large," designed for a chimpanzee of up to 25 kg, measures 0.76
by 1.1 m, with a height of 1.6 m. Federal requirements for cage size are dependent on body size; infant chimpanzees, who are the most active, are often
imprisoned in the smallest cages.
In most labs, the chimpanzees cannot even lie with their arms and legs
outstretched. They are not let out to exercise. There is seldom anything for them
to do other than eat, and then only when food is brought. The caretakers are
usually too busy to pay attention to individual chimpanzees. The cages are bleak
and sterile, with bars above, bars below, bars on every side. There is no comfort
in them, no bedding. The chimps, infected with human diseases, will often feel
sick and miserable.
A Harmful System
What of the human beings who administer these facilities-the caretakers,
veterinarians, and scientists who work at them? If they are decent, compassionate people, how can they condone, or even tolerate, the kind of conditions I have
described?
They are, I believe, victims of a system that was set up long before the
cognitive abilities and emotional needs of chimpanzees were understood. Newly
ACCOMMODATION
377
employed staff members, equipped with a normal measure of compassion, may

well be sickened by what they see. And, in fact, many of them do quit their jobs,
unable to endure the suffering they see inflicted on the animals yet feeling
powerless to help.
But others stay on and gradually come to accept the cruelty, believing (or
forcing themselves to believe) that it is an inevitable part of the struggle to
reduce human suffering. Some become hard and callous in the process, in
Shakespeare's words, "all pity choked with custom of fell deeds."
A handful of compassionate and dedicated caretakers and veterinarians are
fighting to improve the lot of the animals in their care. Veterinarians are often
in a particularly difficult position, for if they stand firm and try to uphold high
standards of humane care, they will not always be welcome in the lab.
Many of the scientists believe that a bleak, sterile, and restricting environment is necessary for their research. The cages must be small, the scientists
maintain, because otherwise it is too difficult to treat the chimpanzees-to inject
them, to draw their blood, or to anesthetize them. Moreover, they are less likely
to hurt themselves in small cages.
The cages must also be barren, with no bedding or toys, say the scientists.
This way, the chimpanzees are less likely to pick up diseases or parasites. Also,
if things are lying about, the cages are harder to clean.
And the chimpanzees must be kept in isolation, the scientists believe, to
avoid the risk of cross-infection, particularly in hepatitis research.
Finally, of course, bigger cages, social groups, and elaborate furnishings
require more space, more caretakers-and more money. Perhaps, then, if we are
to believe these researchers, it is not possible to improve conditions for chimpanzees imprisoned in biomedical research laboratories.
I believe not only that it is possible, but that improvements are absolutely
necessary. If we do not do something to help these creatures, we make a mockery of the whole concept of justice.
Quality of Life in the Laboratory

Perhaps the most important way we can improve the quality of life for the
laboratory chimps is to increase the number of carefully trained caretakers.
These people should be selected for their understanding of animal behavior and
their compassion and respect for, and dedication to, their charges. Each caretaker, having established a relationship of trust with the chimpanzees in his
care, should be allowed to spend time with the animals over and above that
required for cleaning the cages and providing the animals with food and water.
It has been shown that a chimpanzee who has a good relationship with his
caretaker will cooperate calmly during experimental procedures, rather than
react with fear or anger. At the Dutch Primate Center in Rijswijk, for example,
some chimpanzees have been trained to leave their group cage on command and
move into small, single cages for treatment. At the Stanford Primate Center in
California, a number of chimpanzees were taught to extend their arms for the
drawing of blood. In return they were given a food reward.
Much can be done to alleviate the pain and distress felt by younger chimpanzees during experimental procedures. A youngster, for example, can be treated
378
when in the presence of a trusted human friend. Experiments have shown that
young chimps react with high levels of distress if subjected to mild electric
shocks when alone, but show almost no fear or pain when held by a sympathetic
caretaker.
What about cage size? Here we should emulate the animal-protection regulations that already exist in Switzerland. These laws stipulate that a cage must be,
at minimum, about 20 m2 and 3 m high for pairs of chimpanzees.
The chimpanzees should never be housed alone unless this is an essential
part of the experimental procedure. For chimps in solitary confinement, particularly youngsters, three to four hours of friendly interaction with a caretaker
should be mandatory. A chimp taking part in hepatitis research, in which the
risk of cross-infection is, I am told, great, can be provided with a companion
of a compatible species if it doesn't infringe on existing regulations-a rhesus
monkey, for example, which cannot catch or pass on the disease.
For healthy chimpanzees there should be little risk of infection from bedding
and toys. Stress and depression, however, can have deleterious effects on their
health. It is known that clinically depressed humans are more prone to a variety
of physiological disorders, and heightened stress can interfere with immune
function. Given the chimpanzee's similarities to humans, it is not surprising that
the chimp in a typical laboratory, alone in his bleak cage, is an easy prey to
infections and parasites.
Thus, the chimpanzees also should be provided with a rich and stimulating
environment. Climbing apparatus should be obligatory. There should be many
objects for them to play with or otherwise manipulate. A variety of simple
devices designed to alleviate boredom could be produced quite cheaply. Unexpected food items will elicit great pleasure. If a few simple buttons in each cage
were connected to a computer terminal, it would be possible for the chimpanzees to feel they at least have some control over their world-if one button
produced a grape when pressed, another a drink, another a video picture. (The
Canadian Council on Animal Care recommends the provision of television for
primates in solitary confinement, or other means of enriching their environment .)
Without doubt, it will be considerably more costly to maintain chimpanzees
in the manner I have outlined. Should we begrudge them the extra dollars? We
take from them their freedom, their health, and often their lives. Surely, the
least we can do is try to provide them with some of the things that could make
their imprisonment more bearable.
There are hopeful signs. I was immensely grateful to officials of the National
Institutes of Health for allowing me to visit the primate facility, enabling me
to see the conditions there and judge them for myself. And I was even more
grateful for the fact that they gave me a great deal of time for serious discussions
of the problem. Doors were opened and a dialogue begun. All who were present
at the meetings agreed that, in light of present knowledge, it is indeed necessary
to give chimpanzees a better deal in the labs.
I have had the privilege of working among wild, free chimpanzees for more
than 26 years. I have gained a deep understanding of chimpanzee nature. Chimpanzees have given me so much in my life. The least I can do is to speak out
for the hundreds of chimpanzees who, right now, sit hunched, miserable and
ACCOMMODATION
. 379
without hope, staring out with dead eyes from their metal prisons. They cannot
speak for themselves.
FOR YOU TO WRITE

Write an argument of about 1,000 words and put it together in several
different ways.
1. For an audience who is uninformed and unbiased on the topic.
2. For a slightly resistant audience or one to whom you must establish your
authority to make this particular argument.

3. For a very resistant audience, one that holds the opposite thesis.
You may take any subject suggested in previous sections or one of the
following specific suggestions.
1. Characterize a person, either real or fictional, living or historical, as belonging
to a category, class, or type. You must avoid offensive stereotyping.
2. Evaluate the clothing and appearance of a group or an individual. The challenge in this argument is to make it impersonal.
3 . Make a causal argument for one person's responsibility as the main cause of
another person's success or failure.

4. Propose that your college replace its current grading system with another
(from letter grades to pass/fail or from numerical average to letter grade or

some other system).
A few, 46
Abstractions, 42-44
evaluations of, 239-240
Accommodation, 328-370
and audience identification, 329-331
and conviction and moderation,
356-357
and credibility, 331-332
and emotion, 357-363
and variation in arrangement, 365-370
and virtue, 351-357
(See also Voice in arguments)
Adjectives in causal arguments, 203204
Aesthetics:
and evaluations of constructed things,
228-233
and evaluations of natural things,
226-227
Agency, 175-177
and Mill's methods, 185-186
in proposals, 278
Agreement, method of, 178-179
All, 49-50
versus most, 48
Analogy:
in causal arguments, 190
and proposals, 278-279
Antecedent, 207
Anybody, 347-348
Anyone, 347-348
Arguable statements:
continuum of arguability of, 53-55
definition of, 17
definitions in:
essential, 58-71
how to define, 74-94
discovering grounds for, 19-22
about nature of things, 41-55
versus opinions, 18-19
(Se? also Arguments)
Arguments:
and audience, 23-24
comparisons in, 111-113
consequences of, 6-7
and demonstrations, 12-14
from ego, 8
elements of, 22-23
and exigence, 24-25
INDEX
comparisons and disjunctions in,
107-123
faulty, 93-94
taxonomy of, 2-3
verification in, 134-142
virtue in, 351-357
voice in, 331-349
(See also Arguable statements; Causal
arguments; Evaluations; Proposals;
Refutation; Support for arguments;
Thesis statements)
Art (see Aesthetics)
Association, 231-232
Assumptions, 25
Audience, 23-24
creation of, with you, 338
and definitions, 61-63
and demonstration of facts, 12-13
and evaluations, 224-226
general audience, 330-331
identification of, 329-331
importance of, 4
for proposals:
and demonstrations, 268
and ethical appeals, 271-273
for specific proposals, 276-277
and undesirable consequences,
269-270
and sign arguments, 206
variability of, 25-26
and verification, 134
(See also Accommodation)
Authority:
and evaluations, 225
of abstractions, 239
and 1, 333-334
as support for definitions, 92
verification by, 141-142
Beauty (see Aesthetics)
Bias, 140
Blocking causes:
absence of, 157-158
and feasibility of proposals, 287
Causal arguments, 3, 167-168, 174-192
analogy in, 190
and basic assumptions about causes,
174-177
381
with causal verbs, 201-202

and chains of causes, 186-187
common-factor method in, 178-179
difficulties in, 191-192
elimination method in, 184-185
examples in, 188-189
and fact-plus-cause statements, 208
and if-then causal statements, 207
and predictions, 209-212
in proposals, 273-275, 280
sign arguments, 204-206
single-difference method in, 180-181
thesis statements in, 368
and time precedence, 187-188
varying causes and effects method in,
181-183
wording of, 201-212
Causal verbs, 201-202
Causality:
versus chance, 160-161
(See also Causal arguments; Causes)
Causes, 147-168
conditions, 149-150
influences, 150
necessary, 153-154
precipitating, 150-151
proximate, 152
reciprocal, 158-160
remote, 152-153
and responsibility, 156-157
sufficient, 154-155
(See also Blocking causes; Causal
arguments; Causality; Chains of
causes)
Censorship, 233
Chains of causes, 186-187
and proposals, 278
Chance, 160-161
Circular arguments, 61-62
Circumlocution, 360-361
Claims about nature of things, 31-38
Classification, 32-33
Common-factor method, 178-179
Comparative evaluations, 243-245
Comparisons:
in arguments about nature o f things,
107-120
382
INDEX
arrangement of, 111-113

comparing and contrasting, 115-120
with degree, 116-120
of abstractions, 239-240
with degree, 243
levels of arguability in, 107-109
metaphoric, 114
simple, 110-111
(See also Contrasts)
Complement, 31-32
Concession, 353-354
Concomitant variation, method of,
181-183
Conditions, 149-150
necessary, 153-154
Consequences:
absence of, 7
moral, of art, 232-233
of natural things, 226
practical, 6-7
in proposals:
desirable, 278-279
undesirable, 269-271, 279-280
(See also Predictions)
Consequent, 207
Constructed things, evaluations of,
227-233
Contrast definition, 86
Contrasts, 108-109, 229-230
comparing and contrasting, 115-120
simple, 115
Conviction in arguments, 356
Craftsmanship, 230-231
Criteria, 224
difficulties with, 246
weighting of, 240-241
Definitions, 43-44
and arguability, 53-55
essential, 58-71
and ethical appeals, 272
etymological, 82-83
and evaluations, 223-224
of human acts and events, 236
of people, 234
superlative evaluations, 245
by example, 81-82
explicit versus absent, 59-67
figurative, 87-88
genetic, 84-85
genuddifference, 76-81
how to define, 74-94
negative, 85-86
operational, 88-91
placement of, 68-71
support for, 91-92
with synonyms, 74-75
and thesis statement placement, 369
and wrong arguments about nature of
things, 93-94
(See also Redefinition)
Demonstrations:
of facts, 12-14
in proposals, 267-269
Dialogue building, 342-344
Dictionary definitions, 92
Difference, 76-81
method of, 180-181
Directions to audience, 339-340
Disclaimers, 357
Disjunctions, 120-123
Dispersed definitions, 69-71, 80-81
Distortion, 229
Dc,cumentation, 142
Effects (see Consequences)
Ego, arguments from, 8
Elimination in definitions, 86
Elimination method, 184-185
Emotion in arguments, 357-363
Ethics:
and euphemisms, 359-360
and evaluations:
of acts and events, 236-238
of consequences in proposals,
270-273
and proposals, 270-273, 280-281
and weighting values, 241-242
Etymological definitions, 82-83
Euphemisms, 358-360
Evaluations, 11-12, 223-247
of abstractions, 239-240
and audience, 224-226
INDEX
conlparative, 243-245
of consequences in proposals, 270-271
difficulties in, 246-247
of events and actions, 235-238
and opinion, 224
of people, 234-235
of things, 226-233
and weighting criteria, 240-241
and weighting values, 241-242
Evrrybody, 347-348
Everyone 347-348
Examples:
for arguments:
with many, 47-48
with mosf, 48
with some, 47
in causal arguments, 188-189
definitions by, 81-82
and dispersed definitions, 69-70
and emotion, 361-363
as support for arguments, 34-39
Exigence, 24-25
Existence (see Facts; Nature of things)
Experience (see Personal experience)
Experts and verification, 142
Extremism, 352
Fact-plus-cause statements, 208
Facts, 9-14
demonstration of, 12-14
fact-plus-cause statements, 208
factual predicates, 53
as generalizations with future tense, 210
and refutation, 315-316
and sign arguments, 205
Feasibility of proposals, 281-290
Few, 46-47
Figurative definitions, 87-88
Future tense, generalizations with,
210-211
Gardner, John, 225
Ccneralizations:
with all, 49-50
versus examples, 37-38
with future tense, 210-211
Genetic definitions, 84-85
Genuddifference definitions, 76-81
Groups in arguments, 316-348
383
Harmony, 230
Hearsay, 138-141
Historical definitions, 84-85
Human acts and events, evaluation of, 236
Human beings, evaluations of, 347-348
Hypothetical examples, 35-36
1, 332-337
Ideology, 232
If-then causal statements, 207
Imperfect disjunctions, 122-123
Influences, 150
Intentions, 210
Isolated definitions, 68-69
Iterative examples, 34-35
Jargon, 61
Landscapes, evaluations of, 227
Linking verbs, 31-32
Many, 47-48
Metaphoric comparisons, 114
Mill, John Stuart, 3, 177-178
Moderation in arguments, 351-357
Monotony, 230
Moral consequences of art, 232-233
Mosb 48-49
versus few, 47
Natural acts and events, evaluation of,
235-236
Natural things, evaluations of, 226-227
Nature of things:
analysis of statements about, 41-55
and causal assertions, 203-204
claims about, 31-38
comparisons and disjunctions in
arguments about, 107-123
wrong arguments about, 93-94
Necessary causes, 153-154
Necessary conditions, 153-154
Negative definitions, 85-86
New terms, invention and definition of, 65
Objective voice, 349
Occam's razor, 185-186
Operational definitions, 88-91
and comparisons with degree, 118
384
INDEX
Opinion:
versus argument, 16-19, 22
definition of, 17
Parsimony, principle of, 185-186
Particular examples, 34
People, 347-348
People, evaluations of, 234-235
Perfect disjunctions, 121-122
Periphrasis, 360-361
Personal experience:
and .! 333
as verification, 137-138
Personal taste (see Opinion)
Peter Principle, 211
Phrases, synonyms for, 75
Plato, 24
Plural subjects, 44-50
with definite numbers, 44-45
with indefinite numbers, 46-50
Point-by-point comparisons, 112
Posf hor fallacy, 187
Practical evaluations, 227
Precipitating causes, 150-151
Precision of words, 360
Predicates, 31-32, 53-55
in causal arguments, 203-204
of evaluations, 224
Predictions, 209-212
in proposals, 278-279
Preliminary arguments, 267-275
Premises, 25
Proportion, 228-229
Proposals, 11, 265-291
difficulties with, 290-291
feasibility of, 281-290
kinds of, 266-267
and preliminary arguments, 267-275
and proposal statements, 275-277
support for, 278-281
thesis statement in, 368
Proximate causes. 152
Questions, 342-344
Rual, 54
Reasonableness, 351-356
Reciprocal causes, 158-160
Redefinition, 63-64
of broad terms, 66-67
Reference books, 141
Refutation, 307-317
explicitness of, 310-311
parts of, 313-317
as whole drgument, 311-313
Remote causes, 152-153
Residues, method of, 184-185
Responsibility, 156-157
Rhetorical questions, 343-344
Sameness comparisons, 119-120
Science and facts, 13-14
Sentences about nature of things, 31-32
Sign arguments, 204-206
Simple comparisons, 110-111
Simple contrasts, 115
Single-difference method, 180-181
Single subjects, 42
Slang, 61
Sorn~, 47
versus many. 47-48
Standards (we Criteria)
Subjects, 31-32
of arguable statements about nature of
things, 41-50
set making in, 51-52
Sufficient causes, 154-155
Superlative evaluations, 245
Support for arguments, 25-26
for causal arguments, 201-212
and comparisons with degree, 119
for evaluations, 223-247
by examples, 34-39
about nature of things, 41-55, 93-94
for proposals, 278-281
support for definitions, 91-92
Synonyms in definitions, 74-75
Taste (see Opinion)
Technical terms, 43
etymological definitions of, 83
jargon, 61
Thesis statements, 23
placement of, 366-370
Things:
evaluations of, 226-233
(SECalso Nature of things)
Time precedence, 187-188

Typicality of examples, 36-37
Unity, 229
Universals:
as statements with all, 49-50
in written arguments, 50-51
Value judgments (see Evaluations)
Values:
weighting of, 241-242
Variation in arrangement, 365-370
Varying causes and effects method,
181-183
Verbs:
causal, 201-202
linking, 31-32
Verification, 134-142
by authority, 141-142
of facts, 9-10
from hearsay, 138-141
and objective voice, 349

from personal experience, 137-138
Virtue in arguments, 351-357
Voice in arguments, 331-349
1, 332-337
objective voice, 349
we, 344-347
you, 337-344
We, 344-347
Weighting:
of criteria, 240-241
of values, 241-242
Whole-subject comparisons, 112113
Will, 209-211
Word choice in arguments, 361, 363
Writing:
definition by example in, 82
and exigence, 24-25

A Rhetoric of Argument

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Rhetoric of Argument

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Rhetoric of Argument

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

What We Do Not Argue About

PART ONE WHAT IS IT?

Claims About the Nature of Things

Analyzing Statements About the Nature of Things

The Essential Definition

7 More Arguments About the Nature of Things:

Comparisons and Disjunctions

The Brain Scan 135

PART TWO HOW DID IT GET

Set 2: Proximate and Remote Causes 151

10 The Tactics of Causal Argument

Agency: Our Basic Assumption About What Causes What

Precision and Prediction

PART THREE IS IT GOOD OR BAD?

Evaluation Is Not a Matter of Taste 224

PART FOUR WHAT SHOULD WE DO

13 The Proposal: Arguing About What Should Be Done

Kinds of Proposals 266

PART FIVE WHAT EVERY ARGUMENT

The Indispensable Refutation

Telling the Audience About Itself 329

Argument has been recognized as a kind of discourse ever since Aric-totle

causes of ongoing or completed events, of course, in being about probable

For help in producing the second edition of A Rhetoric of Argument we

This book represents an approach to teaching written argument that we

pletely new. The classical stases of Cicero, Quintilian, and Hermogenes

and, on the other, the kind of vagueness that high-mindedly admonishes

. MOTIVES FOR ARGUMENT

MOTIVES FOR ARGUMENT

TRUTH WITHOUT APPARENT CONSEQUENCES

MOTIVES FOR ARGUMENT

ARGUMENT FROM EGO

WHAT W E DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT

3. Cats are mammals.

3. "Happy Birthday" is the most frequently sung song in English.

WHAT WE DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT

ment like "There are 8,963,672,811 beetles in the world" as a claim of

Whenever the response to a statement can be diagrammed this way, we

WHAT WE DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT

be a fact. Apply the test: Is a spectrum of responses possible? Yes. Then

Let's summarize what makes a statement a fact

W H A T WE DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT

clearly and unambiguously convince our audience. Arguments support but

WHAT WE DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT

D. Roosevelt was a popular president.

3. Jelly Roll Morton's real name was Ferdinand La Menthe.

6 . The amount of knowledge has doubled twice in the last century.

8. Armadillos always give birth to four young of the same sex.

11. The kumquat tree grows to a height of 15 feet.

13. Classical music was composed from roughly 1750 to 1820.

FOR YOU TO ANAL YZE

WHAT WE D O NOT ARGUE ABOUT

MATTERS OF PERSONAL TASTE

WHAT WE D O NOT ARGUE ABOUT

An opinion is a statement of preference

An Arguable Statement That Masquerades as Personal

A Personal Statement That Masquerades as Arguhble

WHAT WE DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT

Imagine asking the holder of any of these positions for grounds of