There are more propositions to be grouped under II, and their arrangement will be more difficult. We find, however, after a little thought that three general propositions will cover all the propositions given :II. Corporal punishment is morally ineffective, for

A. It does not help the child to know the right. B. It does not help the child to desire to do rightly.

C. It does not help the child to do rightly. By a process similar to that already suggested, the propositions belonging under A, B, and C may be selected and supplied.

II. It is morally ineffective, for

A. It does not help the child to know what is right, for

I. It does not make evident the relation between the offence and the punish

ment.

2. It gives the child the idea that the physically weak must submit to the physically strong.

B. It does not help the child to desire to do rightly, for

I. It does not lead him to repent of his

wrongdoing, for

a. It makes him more conscious of being

wronged than of having done wrong.

b. It leads him to wish to avoid pain rather than to wish to do what is

right.

2. It leads him to wish to do wrong, for
a. It destroys his love and respect for
those in authority over him.

b. It makes many children sullen and
resentful.

C. It does not help the child to do rightly, for I. It does not prevent the repetition of the same offence, for

a. Children often repeat in defiance the offence for which they have been punished.

b. Children become brutalized and deliberately commit an offence for which

they know the penalty will be a whipping.

2. It does not prevent the child's offending in other ways, for

a. It leads him to lie to avoid pain.

b. It leads him to concealment.

c. It leads him to acts of vengeance.

Only complete simple propositions are used in the brief. All propositions in the brief are directly or indirectly related to the leading proposition; the relationship is one that can be signified by the conjunction "for." The order throughout is, conclusion,

then evidence. To get this firmly fixed in mind at the start will save the student much perplexity. It is really the order to which we are all accustomed. The teacher in the class room calls for your conclusion, then your evidence: you must tell what case a Latin noun is in and then give the reason that has led to your conclusion; you must name the chemical compound and then tell the signs; give the answer to the problem, then explain your process.

If you find yourself using in your brief such conjunctions as "as," "since," "hence," "therefore," "consequently," you may know immediately that your order is wrong, that you are giving the conclusion after the evidence rather than before it. "For" is a safe conjunction to use.

The requirement, conclusion before evidence, is one made not merely for uniformity, but because this

order is more convincing. If you furnish your hearer

or reader with the conclusion at the start, he knows just what is demanded of the evidence presented to him, and can as he receives it judge its adequacy. Whereas, if the evidence is presented first, the reader or hearer is not aware of what it is expected to prove and flounders blindly about in the dark, trying to find out for himself its purpose. When he reaches the conclusion, its statement either seems superfluous because he has already discovered it for himself, or, if he has not been able to infer it from the evidence, it

seems questionable and he must review the points made to see if the conclusion is fully sustained. For the economy of mental effort, the order, conclusion before evidence, should be uniformly followed throughout the entire argument.

not the end the place

It would be unfortunate

But, one might ask, is for the conclusion. It is. to close a long argument with a bit of evidence for the truth of a conclusion almost lost sight of. It is, therefore, customary to append to the argument proper what is technically called the "conclusion.” This is a short paragraph summing up the main lines of argument and stating the conclusion. In this final paragraph the order is reversed and the evidence is given first. The conjunctions used are, accordingly, those not used in the argument proper, "since," "as," "therefore." The paragraph ends with the statement of the proposition that has been proved.

For the convenience of the instructor in marking the papers there should be uniformity as to the symbols used to designate the rank and number of a proposition. Various methods are in use but the following is recommended:

The main proposition, standing alone at the head of the argument without the possibility of a coördi nate proposition, should not be numbered. The propositions that immediately support this proposition should be marked by Roman numerals. The

propositions sustaining these propositions should be marked by capital letters; their subalterns by Arabic numerals, and so on:

Each proposition after the main proposition should have before it one number or letter and only one. If a student finds himself writing B I before a proposition he may know that he has failed to insert a general proposition coördinate with the proposition marked A.

Only propositions bearing the relationship of reason or evidence to the proposition controlling them, should be lettered as subordinate to it. The relationship between proposition I and A, between A and 1, between 1 and a, etc., must be such that it can be expressed by the conjunction “for."