Take the following arguments, supply the missing premises, and construct complete syllogisms:

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Matt. v: 7.

Poverty is a great enemy to human happiness; it certainly destroys liberty. William Mathews.

It is true, no doubt, that a man's immediate ancestors must be supposed to have most influence on his character, and that Byron's immediate ancestors were far from being quiet, respectable people.. - W. Minto.

In writing an essay of this kind remember that the conclusion may be reached through a long series of deductions. Avoid, in general, the formal syllogism. Follow any order. For example, you may tell what John Brown did and then show that such actions, by whomsoever performed, are essentially heroic; or you may begin by defining heroism and then show that John Brown's actions partook of its characteristics. The argument for the downfall of monarchy may be based on the growing love of freedom and the greater courage in the assertion. of individual rights. The whole process is simply this: we go back to broad truths and then make a special application of them.

Read the following inquiry into the cause of the popularity of Childe Harold, by William Minto, Encyclopædia Britannica:

It has often been asked what was the cause of the instantaneous and wide-spread popularity of Childe Harold, which Byron himself so well expressed in the saying, "I awoke one morning and found myself famous." Chief among the secondary causes was the warm sympathy between the poet and his readers, the direct interest of his theme for the time. In the spring of 1812 England was in the very crisis of a struggle for existence. It was just before

...

Napoleon set out for Moscow. An English army was standing on the defensive in Portugal, with difficulty holding its own; the nation was trembling for its safety. The dreaded Bonaparte's next movement was uncertain; it was feared that it might be against our own shores. Rumor was busy with alarms. All through the country men were arming and drilling for self-defence. The heart of England was beating high with patriotic resolution. What were our poets doing in the midst of all this? Scott, then at the head of the tuneful brotherhood in popular favor, was celebrating the exploits of William of Deloraine and Marmion. . . . Southey was floundering in the dim sea of Hindu mythology. Rogers was content with his Pleasures of Memory. Moore confined himself to political squibs and wanton little lays for the boudoir. It was no wonder that, when at last a poet did appear whose impulses were not merely literary, who felt in what century he was living, whose artistic creations were throbbing with the life of his own age, a crowd at once gathered to hear the new singer. There was not a parish in Great Britain in which there was not some household that had a direct personal interest in the scene of the pilgrim's travels - "some friend, some brother there." The effect was not confined to England; Byron at once had all Europe as his audience, because he spoke to them on a theme in which they were all deeply concerned. He spoke to them, too, in language which was not merely a naked expression of their most intense feelings; the spell by which he held them was all the stronger that he lifted them with the irresistible power of his song above the passing anxieties of the moment. Loose and rambling as Childe Harold is, it yet had for the time an unconscious art; it entered the absorbing tumult of a hot and feverish struggle, and opened a way in the dark clouds gathering over the combatants through which they could see the blue vault and the shining stars. In that terrible time of change, when every state in Europe was shaken to its foundation, there was a profound meaning in placing before men's eyes the departed greatness of Greece; it rounded off the troubled scene with dramatic propriety. Even the mournful scepticism of Childe Harold was not resented at a time when it lay at the root of every heart to ask, Is there a God in heaven to see such desolation, and withhold His hand?

Let us consider some methods of overthrowing arguments founded on deductive reasoning. We have already noticed that there are two possibilities of error because the conclusion must be drawn from two premises either one of which may be wrong. The premises therefore need close scrutiny first of all. But there is still a third possibility of error, even granting that the premises are correct: an unwarrantable conclusion may be drawn.

We said that the deductive process is an absolutely correct one. So it is. So are many mathematical processes-the process for instance by which we extract the cube root of numbers. But nevertheless we sometimes make mistakes in following out the process and so arrive at incorrect results. In many a deductive argument, if we go over it carefully, we shall find that there has been a mistake in the process. Suppose we say

All wood is ignitible;
Hickory is ignitible;

Therefore hickory is wood.

Are the premises correct? Yes. Is the conclusion correct? Yes. But is the process, the deduction,

correct? No. The conclusion therefore is unwarranted and not to be depended upon. As a statement it may chance to be correct (as in this instance), but it is not a correct conclusion to draw, for by the same process a very incorrect conclusion may be arrived at, thus:

All wood is ignitible ;

Gas is ignitible;

Therefore gas is wood.

The difficulty is that we have not denied that other things besides wood may also be ignitible. We have said nothing whatever about all ignitible things and therefore we are not warranted in saying anything whatever about any one of them. We have, however, said something about all woods, and we can therefore draw a conclusion about any particular wood, thus:

All wood is ignitible ;

Hickory is wood;

Therefore hickory is ignitible.

And this will be found correct in every particular. Examine the following arguments for fallacies, and if possible make correct syllogisms of them:

Induction is a process of reasoning;

Induction furnishes us with knowledge;

Therefore processes of reasoning furnish us with knowledge.

Induction is the only process of reasoning that furnishes us with knowledge;

Therefore, all our knowledge is due to induction.

All liquids are vaporizable;

Gold is not a liquid;

Therefore gold is not vaporizable.

Nothing is better than wisdom;

Bread is better than nothing;

Therefore, bread is better than wisdom.

It is no part of our work here to examine the various fallacies of reasoning and distinguish them and give them names. That belongs to logic. It must suffice for us to recognize the fact that they exist in many disguises, and to be on our guard against them, both in ourselves and in others. After all, they invariably do violence to the axiomatic truths which lie at the foundation of all reason, and every man's "common sense will generally be sufficient to detect them.

In this exercise our object again is rather destructive to expose the fallacy of an argument that involves false deduction. It may be as good practice as any to attempt to overthrow some of the arguments advanced on subjects in the last exercise, to show that John Brown was not a hero, or that slavery is an institution to be upheld. These are questions with two sides, and it may well be that fallacies can be detected in the arguments advanced on one side. Or take one of the other subjects. Suppose it has been represented that the era of peace supervening after the crisis of some great political or religious strife fosters the development of literary genius; that the age of Queen Elizabeth was such an an era in the national history of England; that Shakespeare lived in that age; that his genius was of the highest order; that the genius of Shakespeare was therefore the product of his time. If this argument is closely examined it will be found fallacious in several points.