The Collected Works of Dale Carnegie. Dale Carnegie

and we know it is contrary to God's will because it is wrong.

      8. Criticise this syllogism:

      MAJOR PREMISE: All men who have no cares are happy.

       MINOR PREMISE: Slovenly men are careless.

       CONCLUSION: Therefore, slovenly men are happy.

      9. Criticise the following major, or foundation, premises:

      All is not gold that glitters.

      All cold may be expelled by fire.

      10. Criticise the following fallacy (non sequitur):

      MAJOR PREMISE: All strong men admire strength.

       MINOR PREMISE: This man is not strong.

       CONCLUSION: Therefore this man does not admire strength.

      11. Criticise these statements:

      Sleep is beneficial on account of its soporific qualities.

      Fiske's histories are authentic because they contain accurate accounts of American history, and we know that they are true accounts for otherwise they would not be contained in these authentic works.

      12. What do you understand from the terms "reasoning from effect to cause" and "from cause to effect?" Give examples.

      13. What principle did Richmond Pearson Hobson employ in the following?

      What is the police power of the States? The police power of the Federal Government or the State—any sovereign State—has been defined. Take the definition given by Blackstone, which is:

      The due regulation and domestic order of the Kingdom, whereby the inhabitants of a State, like members of a well-governed family, are bound to conform their general behavior to the rules of propriety, of neighborhood and good manners, and to be decent, industrious, and inoffensive in their respective stations.

      Would this amendment interfere with any State carrying on the promotion of its domestic order?

      Or you can take the definition in another form, in which it is given by Mr. Tiedeman, when he says:

      The object of government is to impose that degree of restraint upon human actions which is necessary to a uniform, reasonable enjoyment of private rights. The power of the government to impose this restraint is called the police power.

      Judge Cooley says of the liquor traffic:

      The business of manufacturing and selling liquor is one that affects the public interests in many ways and leads to many disorders. It has a tendency to increase pauperism and crime. It renders a large force of peace officers essential, and it adds to the expense of the courts and of nearly all branches of civil administration.

      Justice Bradley, of the United States Supreme Court, says:

      Licenses may be properly required in the pursuit of many professions and avocations, which require peculiar skill and training or supervision for the public welfare. The profession or avocation is open to all alike who will prepare themselves with the requisite qualifications or give the requisite security for preserving public order. This is in harmony with the general proposition that the ordinary pursuits of life, forming the greater per cent of the industrial pursuits, are and ought to be free and open to all, subject only to such general regulations, applying equally to all, as the general good may demand.

      All such regulations are entirely competent for the legislature to make and are in no sense an abridgment of the equal rights of citizens. But a license to do that which is odious and against common right is necessarily an outrage upon the equal rights of citizens.

      14. What method did Jesus employ in the following:

      Ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

      Behold the fowls of the air; for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

      And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field; how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; And yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

      Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

15. Make five original syllogisms[26] on the following models:

      Major Premise: He who administers arsenic gives poison. Minor Premise: The prisoner administered arsenic to the victim. Conclusion: Therefore the prisoner is a poisoner.

      Major Premise: All dogs are quadrupeds. Minor Premise: This animal is a biped. Conclusion: Therefore this animal is not a dog.

      16. Prepare either the positive or the negative side of the following question for debate: The recall of judges should be adopted as a national principle.

      17. Is this question debatable? Benedict Arnold was a gentleman. Give reasons for your answer.

      18. Criticise any street or dinner-table argument you have heard recently.

      19. Test the reasoning of any of the speeches given in this volume.

      20. Make a short speech arguing in favor of instruction in public speaking in the public evening schools.

      21. (a) Clip a newspaper editorial in which the reasoning is weak. (b) Criticise it. (c) Correct it.

      22. Make a list of three subjects for debate, selected from the monthly magazines.

      23. Do the same from the newspapers.

      24. Choosing your own question and side, prepare a brief suitable for a ten-minute debating argument. The following models of briefs may help you:

      DEBATE

Resolved: That armed intervention is not justifiable on the part of any nation to collect, on behalf of private individuals, financial claims against any American nation.[27]

      Brief of Affirmative Argument

       First speaker—Chafee

       Armed intervention for collection of private claims from any American nation is not justifiable, for

       1. It is wrong in principle, because (a) It violates the fundamental principles of international law for a very slight cause (b) It is contrary to the proper function of the State, and (c) It is contrary to justice, since claims are exaggerated. Second speaker—Hurley 2. It is disastrous in its results, because (a) It incurs danger of grave international complications (b) It tends to increase the burden of debt in the South American republics (c) It encourages a waste of the world's capital, and (d) It disturbs peace and stability in South America. Third speaker—Bruce 3. It is unnecessary to collect in this way, because (a) Peaceful methods have succeeded (b) If these should fail, claims should be settled by The Hague Tribunal (c) The fault has always been with European States when force has been used, and (d) In any case, force should not be used, for it counteracts the movement towards peace. Brief of Negative Argument First speaker—Branch Armed intervention for the collection of private financial claims against some American States is justifiable,