In preparing an argument, you need something more than a plan, or topical outline; you need complete statements of all the thoughts that are essential to the argument. These statements compose the brief. The brief has three important parts: (1) the introduction, (2) the brief proper, and (3) the conclusion.

In the introduction state clearly:

1. How the question arose.

2. What facts both sides admit.

3. What is the exact point at issue.

In the brief proper show the growth of the argument.:

1. Separate the main arguments from the subordinate.

2. Arrange the main arguments in logical order.

3. Group under them the subordinate arguments, and see that each subdivision is a reason for the truth of the division under which it comes.

In the conclusion sum up the argument concisely.

Refutation

Under this heading we are to point out just what arguments are to be answered. When to bring in the refutation depends upon the question. On one occasion it will seem best to make it very conspicuous - perhaps to put it first, so as to remove opposition or prejudice. On another occasion it may be introduced incidentally as a matter of little consequence. Another time we may not dare mention it till we have advanced most of our arguments; then we shall seek with one strong sweep to remove all obstacles.

Assertion And Proof

We must be particularly careful to draw a sharp line between assertion and proof. If Sydney Smith had said (see p. 254) that "everything an Englishman owns and does is taxed," he would have made an assertion. Instead, however, he cites examples that tend toward the proof of such an assertion. Assertion is an expression of opinion; proof must be supported by facts. Assertions amount to nothing; every bit of evidence, however, is a round in the ladder that leads to the conclusion.

Not only do we need a brief for each side of the debate, but we should be as familiar with the opponent's ground as we are with our own territory, for we are to give and take, to be answered and to answer; and after the contest begins, we have no time for hunting up information.

The following brief for the negative shows the proper arrangement of material:

Brief

The Housing Of The Poor

Question: Resolved, That the housing of the poor should be improved by municipalities.

Introduction

I. In many of the larger cities the poorest inhabitants live in such wretched quarters that public benefactors have raised the question whether these conditions of life cannot be improved by the cities. II. Definitions.

A. The "housing" of the poor refers to tenements.

B. Improved "by municipalities" means at the expense of the city.

III. Both sides admit that.

A. The present tenement-house system is disgraceful.

B. The necessity for improvement is urgent.

IV. The question, then, is whether improvements should be made by municipalities. There are three issues.

A. Is the plan wise in theory?

B. Does it work?

C. Is there no better plan?

Brief Proper

I. Municipal housing is not wise in theory.

A. It is charity of a wrong kind. 1. It weakens self-dependence.

B. It is unjust to the taxpayer.

1. The thrifty furnish homes for the improvident. II. Municipal housing does not work in practice.

A. The Glasgow experiments helped only a few families.

B. Experiments in Naples were unsatisfactory.1

C. Experiments in London failed.2

III. There are better ways of solving the problem.

A. Private citizens are keeping old buildings in good repair. 1. In London.3

2. In Boston.

3. In New York.

B. Private citizens are building model tenements.

1. In London.

2. In Brooklyn.

C. Cooperative associations are building cottages in suburbs. 1. In Philadelphia.

Conclusion

Because municipal housing is not wise in theory, because it does not work in practice, and because there are better ways of solving the problem, the housing of the poor should not be improved by municipalities.