ettering of all
statements and substatements.

Each issue should be a logical reason for the truth of the
proposition.

Each substatement should be a logical reason for the issue or
statement that it supports.

Each issue in the proof and each statement that has supporting
statements should be followed by the word "for."

Each reason given in support of the issues and each subreason should
be no more than a simple, complete, declarative sentence.

The word "for" should never appear as a connective between a statement
and substatement in the introduction.

The words "hence" and "therefore" should never appear in the proof of
the brief, but one should be able to read _up_ through the brief and
by substituting the word "therefore" for the word "for" in each case,
arrive at the proposition as a conclusion.

SUGGESTED EXERCISES

1. Turn to Exercise 1, in Lesson V, and carefully brief the selection
from Burke.

2. Is the following extract from a high-school student's brief correct
in form? Criticize it in regard to arrangement of ideas, and correct
it so far as is possible without using new material.

SOCCER FOOTBALL SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN THE "A" HIGH
SCHOOL AS A REGULAR BRANCH OF ATHLETIC SPORT

INTRODUCTION

I. Recent popularity of soccer.

1. In England.

2. In America.

II. Soccer a healthful game, for:

1. Develops lungs.

2. Develops all the muscles.

III. Issues.

1. Soccer is a beneficial game.

2. Would the students of "A" support soccer as a regular
sport?

PROOF

I. Soccer is a beneficial sport, for:

1. It requires much running, kicking, and dodging, both
in offensive and defensive playing, therefore--

(1) It develops muscles.

(2) It develops lungs.

2. It is played out of doors, therefore

(1) It develops lungs.

II. Students of "A" would support soccer as a regular sport, for:

1. Who has ever heard of students who would not support
soccer, baseball, basket-ball, and all other exciting
games?

3. The following is the conclusion of an argument by Edmund Burke in
which the speaker maintained that Warren Hastings should be impeached
by the House of Commons. If it had been preceded by a clear
"introduction" and convincing "proof," do you think that it would have
made an effective "conclusion"?

Therefore, it is with confidence that, ordered by the Commons:

I impeach Warren Hast