rt of the
students to work out for themselves the detail of the argument, even
though they are not all equally successful, is so valuable that a good
deal of time and effort may well be devoted to it. If the class can work
out in the first reading, even with much help from the teacher, the main
propositions of the brief as they are given above, they can be expected
to work out most of the details without much difficulty.

Another very important and valuable line of study in Burke's writings is
the significance of his language. The meaning of such words as
_fomented_, _mace_, _bias_, _sensible_, _dissidence_, and the
significance of such phrases as _auction of finance_, _ransom by
auction_, _taxation by grant_, _touched and grieved_, repay careful
study. The study of from fifty to a hundred such words and phrases,
carefully selected by the teacher, will do much toward familiarizing the
students with Burke's thought, and with his habit of mind. In addition
to this detailed study, and in connection with it, there should be
frequent review of the main arguments in their logical order. In this
way the student, while adding to his knowledge of the argument in
detail, will be acquiring a larger grasp of the argument as a whole.

Finally, there is abundant opportunity here for the study of rhetorical
features: the orderly arrangement of thought in the paragraphs, the
series of short sentences, the long sentences, biblical language,
epigram, paradox, rhetorical question, figurative language, etc. A
comparison with Macaulay's essays will add interest and profit to the
study.

IV. Study of the Book as a Whole

CONTENT.--Why did Burke apologize for presenting his plan?

What comparison did he draw between his own record and that of
Parliament on the question of colonial policy?

Why did he make this comparison?

What is the purpose of paragraph beginning on p. 51, l. 3; on p. 52, l.
24?

Find several statements that Burke has supported with indisputable
evidence; for example, comparisons of exports (pp. 48-53).

Find several statements where he gives no direct evidence, for example,
the facts about the population of the colonies (p. 46), statements about
the religion of the colonists (p. 60).

Why has he not given evidence for all? When may we make statements in
argument without supporting them with evidence?

Is the fact that admitting Ireland, Wales, Chester, and Durham into the
constitution has proved successful