...

of our country. . . . I praise the ministers for not attempting, at the present time, to make the representation uniform. I praise them for not effacing the old distinction between the towns and the counties, and for not assigning members to districts, according to the American practice, by the Rule of Three. The Government has, in my opinion, done all that was necessary for the removal of a great practical evil and no more than was necessary." MACAULAY: On the Reform Bill; House of Commons, March 2, 1831.

ADDED REQUIREMENTS FOR A GOOD INTRODUCTION

Very often the nature of the question under discussion makes the narrowing of the question to the material issues a somewhat more complicated proceeding than it has thus far appeared. Additional steps are found to be helpful.

A clear statement of the occasion for the contention or the cause of the difference of opinion frequently helps to an understanding of just what the points at issue are. If the question is, Resolved, That I should subscribe for the Ladies' Home Journal instead of the Atlantic Monthly for Mary Blank next year, such an introductory sentence, as, "The fact that the leaves in Mary Blank's Atlantic are never cut makes me wonder whether it is worth while to renew her subscription next year," shows at once that the argument is not concerned with the absolute excellence of either periodical, but with the suitability of each to Mary Blank.

The following sentences in like manner indicate the trend of the argument to come:

My income having been reduced one third by the failure of the People's Bank, I have been considering giving up my city home and taking a house in the suburbs.

The devastating forest fires we have had recently, again bring up the question, Is reasonable effort made to enforce the laws protecting the forests of this state?

The frequent assertion of college graduates that they learned more from their fellow-students while in college than from their professors does not seem to me so much to imply that they have learned little from their professors as that they have learned much from their classmates, and makes me wonder if the tutorial system is so desirable as the class method of instruction.

It is sometimes the case that, in spite of the utmost care in stating the proposition, terms are used that demand explanation. Take, for example, the question, Resolved, That the continuance of The George Junior Republic is justifiable. For the average audience, the term The George Junior Republic would require a brief explanation which should include for such an introduction as that given on page 63 a specific statement of the aims of The George Junior Republic. The definition of the term "justifiable" is directly involved in the narrowing of the question and ought by this time to be clearly understood. Still, it may be well to add a word of warning regarding a definition which must serve as a middle term in

the syllogism, must furnish the criterion by which to judge. In such definitions synonyms must be avoided. Synonyms do help to make clear the meaning of unfamiliar words. But they do not help in the least to bring us nearer to argument. The student who says, "Justifiable will be used in this argument to mean defensible, warrantable," is no better off than before he said it. We are as much in need of a test of what is defensible, warrantable as we were of what was justifiable. If, however, he says, "An act may be said to be justifiable when its results show it to have benefited those affected by it," he has given us a gauge by which to measure the justifiability of an institution's continuance.

While an introduction to a brief may with perfect propriety contain, in addition to the statement of what issues are immaterial and what issues are material to the discussion, the statement of the origin of the question and an explanation of terms, care must be taken not to burden the introduction with unnecessary explanation. Such explanations as are essential should be given with as much brevity as is consonant with clearness. The definition of perfectly perspicuous terms is one form of unnecessary explanation. Akin to this fault of giving unneeded definitions is the one just considered, that of giving definitions that do not accomplish anything, the defining by synonyms.

But the most serious danger of overloading the

introduction lies in the statement of the material and the immaterial issues. Most students wish to tell

why each point agreed upon is granted, or, in other words, to give the line of argument by which the opponents reached the agreement from which they start—to go back of the beginning. To do that is to fill the introduction with antecedent material no more relevant to the argument in hand than is the speed of the racers on their way to the race course to those who wait to see the race itself. There should be no argument in the introduction. What is given there is granted by both sides. It frequently happens that in great speeches there is just such argument in the introduction as students have been warned here not to use. This exists, however, as a conscious digression from the argument in hand, made because the speaker realizes that his audience, through forgetfulness or ignorance, is without the antecedent material necessary for intelligent acceptance of the basis of the argument. But all this is, for the person prepared to listen to the argument, as dispensable as would be a recital of the rules of the game at a football contest.

Restrictions of this sort are made for the purpose of strengthening the argument, and if a case occurs where the argument would be weaker for observing the rule, the rule should be sacrificed, not the argument. If the student, after careful consideration, feels that a

few words of explanation would make clear an agreement that would be otherwise questioned, he should, of course, give them. It is best in such cases to summarize the reasons briefly and then give the conclusions, as:

The inconvenience and delay to those who transact business there and the frequent accidents, make it plain that something must be done to relieve the congestion on Washington Street.

The impossibility of diverting traffic from Washington Street and the impracticability of widening the street convince all that relief must be sought by an overhead or underground railroad system, etc.1

So succinct a résumé of the grounds for agreement is not objectionable, if they are not perfectly obvious, but an elaborate presentation of evidence is out of place in the introduction. If the issues need argument, they are material issues and should be admitted to the argument proper.

Full statements rather than phrases should always be given in the introduction to the brief as well as in the brief proper. The phrase is unsatisfactory; it does not tell enough. Compare the following introductions:

A

I. The origin of the question:

A. September entrance examinations.

1 Suggested by Brief V in Baker's Principles of Argumentation.