periences, may make the generalization that city people are less sympathetic than country people. Her line of reasoning is a safe one: what is true of the several members of a class is true of the class. The scientist observes that each woodpecker he examines has a strong chisel-like bill, rigid and acuminate tail feathers, toes arranged in pairs, etc., and concludes that all woodpeckers have these characteristics. The countrywoman and the scientist both draw conclusions from the facts that have come within their observation. But the generalization reached by the biologist is more trustworthy than that reached by the countrywoman. The difference lies in the fact that he has observed an almost unlimited number of woodpeckers, while she has observed a limited number of country people and a limited number of city people. He has observed exactly and has counted as common only those attributes that are characteristic of all. She, on the other hand, has inaccurately attributed the broad term "sympathy" to her country friends because they have been ready to enter into her personal affairs; she has denied it to her city acquaintances because they treated it as a slight matter that her unexpected guest found the dinner table covered with a striped cloth rather than a spotted one, or that she had to wash her windows with unreasonable frequency, and so on. It is quite possible that she should find country

people who could not share her interest in these matters, and city people who could. Moreover, her test is not a significant one. On closer acquaintance and tried by other measures Mrs. Steel might prove more truly sympathetic than Mrs. Field.

In inductive reasoning one should be careful to study a large number of facts on which to base his conclusions and should make no claim that the facts do not justify. After reading The Snow Image, The Great Stone Face, Drowne's Wooden Image, Wakefield, one might draw the conclusion that Hawthorne's stories are light and pleasing; while a reader of The House of the Seven Gables, Ethan Brand, and The Scarlet Letter might pronounce the same author's works morbid. It is possible, too, that other readers pronouncing on the same books might find the second group not morbid and the first not light.

Generalizations may be unreliable because they are supported by too few specific instances or because the supporting assertions are in themselves not true. I may assert that every person in the room has read David Copperfield, for Mary Smith has read it, James Moore has read it, Fred Harrison has read it, and Flora Mason has read it. And Thomas Wilson may remind me that he is present and that he has not read the book. Or Fred Harrison may say, “You are mistaken; I could talk with you about Mr. Micawber, Uriah Heep, Betsey Trotwood, and Peggotty

because my father often quotes them, but I have never read David Copperfield." In either case my generalization is disproved.

There are various ways of becoming aware of an unknown specific truth. I may know an apple is sour because I have tasted it. I may know it through the experience of another; or I may infer that it is sour from certain observed facts. I may infer that it is sour because I know from what tree it was picked, and past experience has led me to believe that the tree in question bears only sour apples. I may infer that the apple is sour because it is small and green and hard, and past experience has taught me that apples having that appearance are sour. Or I may infer that the apple is sour from the fact that the boy eating it is puckering up his face just as I have done when I have tasted sour apples.

In making each of these inferences or deductions I have reached an unknown fact about a particular apple through familiarity with certain classes of apples and knowledge of the particular apple that enabled me to put it into the known class. I know concerning all apples that grow on a certain tree that they are sour. I know that this particular apple may be classed as the fruit of that tree. Then, since each member of a class must have the attributes of the class, this apple must have the attribute sourness that has been predicated of all the apples that grow on that tree.

My reasoning simply expressed is,

All apples that grow on that tree are sour.

This apple grew on that tree.

This apple is sour.

If it is granted that all the eggs in the refrigerator are fresh, then those in the basket must be fresh, for the basket is in the refrigerator. If all the men on a ball team are known to be good players and I can show that any individual is a member of the team, I need no further argument to prove him a good player.

This combination of assertions, the predication of an attribute to a class, the assertion that a particular object or objects belong to that class, and the assertion that the particular object has the attribute ascribed to the class, is called a syllogism. The three propositions are called respectively the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion.

Major premise.- All members of the Symphony Orchestra are skilled musicians.

Minor premise. — Mr. Forbes is a member of the Symphony Orchestra.

Conclusion.. - Mr. Forbes is a skilled musician.

In ordinary speech a syllogism is usually contracted into an enthymeme; that is, only two of the three propositions are expressed, as Mr. Forbes is a skilled musician, for he is a member of the Symphony Orchestra; or Mr. Forbes is a skilled musician, for all members of the Symphony Orchestra are skilled

musicians; or Mr. Forbes is a member of the Symphony Orchestra, and all members of the Symphony Orchestra are skilled musicians.

It will be noticed that the third proposition may be readily inferred from the other two. Only three terms are possible in a syllogism, and any two propDsitions must contain all three of them, since the major premise has for its predicate the major term of the syllogism; the minor premise has for its subject the minor term of the syllogism; the conclusion has for its subject the minor term, for its predicate the major term; and the middle term occurs as the subject of the major premise and the predicate of the minor premise.

In the syllogism last considered the members of the Symphony Orchestra is the middle term; skilled musicians is the major term, and Mr. Forbes is the minor term. The middle term is the known class; the minor term, the partly known individual member of that class; the major term, the attribute that is known to belong to the class and hence to the individual member of the class.

It is clear that in order that the truth of the conclusion should inevitably follow from the premises the major premise must be universal; that is, every member of the class must be included. If there are any exceptions, if some members of the Orchestra are not skilled musicians, the fact that Mr. Forbes is a

ARGUMENTATION 3