f them one by one as
illegal, or unsuited, or clumsy, or inexpedient, leaving only one, the
one he wants adopted, as the one which must be followed.

This is a good practical method of proof, provided the speaker really
considers _all_ the possible ways of proceeding and does show the
undesirability of all except the one remaining.

A speaker pleading for the installation of a commission form of city
control might list all the possible ways of city government, a
business manager, a mayor, a commission. By disposing completely of
the first two, he would have proven the need for the last. A good
speaker will aways go farther than merely to reach this kind of
conclusion. He will, in addition to disproving the unworthy choices,
strongly support his residue, the measure he wants adopted. In
supporting amounts of taxes, assessments, etc., this method may be
used. One amount can be proven so large as to cause unrest, another so
small as to be insufficient, a third to produce a total just large
enough to meet all anticipated expenses with no surplus for
emergencies; therefore the correct amount must be just larger than
this but not reaching an amount likely to produce the result caused by
the first considered. Used in trials of criminal cases it eliminates
motives until a single inevitable remainder cannot be argued away.
This may be the clue to follow, or it may be the last one of all
suspected persons. Burke considered several possible ways of dealing
with the American colonies; one he dismissed as no more than a "sally
of anger," a second could not be operated because of the distance, a
scheme of Lord North's he proved would complicate rather than settle
matters, to change the spirit of America was impossible, to prosecute
it as criminal was inexpedient, therefore but one way remained, to
conciliate the spirit of discontent by letting the colonies vote their
own taxes. It is interesting that what Burke described as the sally of
anger was the way the matter was actually settled--Great Britain had
to give up the American colonies.

This method is also called elimination.

Cause to Effect. Just as the explainer may pass from cause to effect
so may the arguer. Other names for this method are antecedent
probability and _a priori_ argument. In argument from a known cause an
effect is proven as having occurred or as likely to occur. In solving
crime this is the method which uses the value of the motives for crime
as known to e