Where the question is large and abstract the audience may be so general as to seem to have no special characteristics; but if you will think of the differences of tone and attitude of two different newspapers in treating some local subject you will see that readers always segregate themselves into types. Even on a larger scale, one can say that the people of the United States as a whole are optimistic and self-confident in temper, and in consequence careless as to many minor deficiencies and blemishes in our national polity. On a good many questions the South, which is still chiefly agricultural, has different interests and prepossessions from the North; and the West, being a new country, is inclined to have less reverence for the vested rights of property as against the rights of men, than the Eastern states, where wealth has long been concentrated and inherited.
As one narrows down to the immediate or local questions which make the best subjects for practice the part played by the audience becomes more apparent. The reform of the rules of football is a good example: a few years ago an audience of elderly people would have taken for granted the brutality of the game, and its tendency to put a premium on unfair play; the rules committee, made up of believers in the game, had to be hammered at for several years before they made the changes which have so greatly improved it. So in matters of local or municipal interest, such as the location of a new street car line, or the laying out of a park, it will make a vast difference to you whether you are writing for people who have land on the proposed line or park, or for the general body of citizens.
Differences in thy prepossessions of your audience and in their knowledge of the subject have, therefore, a direct and practical effect on the planning of your argument. Suppose you are arguing in favor of raising the standard of admission to your college; if your argument is addressed to the faculty you will give little space to explaining what those requirements now are; but if you are sending out an address to the alumni you must give some space to telling them clearly and without technicalities what present conditions are and explaining the changes that you propose. Theoretically an argument should change in form and proportions for every audience which you address. The theory may be pushed too far; but in the practice of real life it will be found nearly true. With different audiences you will unconsciously make different selection of material, and you will vary your emphasis, the place of your refutation, and the distribution of your space.
Notebook. Enter the audience for whom your argument might be written, and note what you think would be their knowledge of the subject, and their prepossessions toward it.
Illustration. The citizens of Wytown. They are convinced that there should be a change in the city government; but they are not yet familiar with the Des Moines plan.
EXERCISES
1. Bring to class editorials from different newspapers on the same local subject, and point out differences of attitude which they assume in the audiences they address.
2. Suggest three different possible audiences for your argument, and show what differences you would make in your argument in addressing each of them.
16. The Burden of Proof. The principle which underlies the responsibility for the burden of proof may be summed up in the adage of the common law, He who asserts must prove.
At the law this principle has been elaborated into a large and abstruse subject; in ordinary arguments where there is no judge to make subtle discriminations, you must interpret it in the broadest way. The average man lacks both the interest and the capacity for making keen distinctions; and when you are writing for him you would make a mistake if you were to stickle for fine points concerning the burden of proof.
In general, the principle as it bears on the arguments of everyday life implies that any argument in favor of a change shall accept the burden of proof. This application of the principle is illustrated in the following extract from an editorial article in The Outlook some years ago, on a proposed change in the law of New York concerning the safeguards of vivisection.
The real question is not as to the merits of vivisection, but as to the proper safeguards with which the law should surround it.
At present the law of New York state applies to experiments upon animals the same principle that it applies to surgical operations upon men, women, and children. It does not attempt to prescribe the conditions under which either experiments or operations should be conducted; but it does prescribe the standards of fitness which every person who may lawfully engage in surgery and which every person who may lawfully engage in animal experimentation must meet. It penalizes with fine or imprisonment or both the unjustifiable injuring, mutilating, or killing of animals; and it confines to regularly incorporated medical colleges and universities of the state the authority under which animal experimentation may be conducted.
The burden of proof rests upon those who would have the state abandon this principle and substitute for it the principle of prescribing the conditions of scientific investigation. It rests upon them to prove, in the first place, that the present law is inadequate. It is not sufficient for them to produce lawyers who give opinions that the law is not efficient. There are lawyers of the highest standing in the state who declare that it is efficient. The only adequate mode of proof would be by the prosecution of an actual abuse. So far as we have been able to learn, only one authentic case of alleged unjustifiable experimentation has been brought forward by the supporters of the bills. This is certainly not proof that the present law is inadequate.
In the second place, the burden of proof rests upon them to show that legal restrictions on the methods of science would not vitiate investigations, and would not, therefore, entail upon human beings greater suffering than would otherwise be inflicted upon animals …
It is because The Outlook is convinced by overwhelming evidence that the practice of vivisection has not increased suffering but has rather widened immeasurably the merciful ministrations of medicine and surgery that it regards as dangerous unintelligent interference with vivisection, and urges the maintenance of the principle underlying the present New York law.
So with other questions of policy, the burden of proof would be on any one who proposed a change from a policy long established, such as free trade in England, and to a less extent protection in this country, the elective system in many American colleges, the amateur rule in school and college athletics.
Always, one must remember that the burden of proof depends on the prepossessions of the audience, and that on the same question it may change within a moderately small number of years. Ten years ago, on the question of the popular election of senators the burden was clearly on the side of those who advocated a change in the Constitution. By this time (1912) the burden of proof has for a majority of the people of the United States probably swung to the other side. In the state of Maine, where prohibition had been embodied in the state constitution for a generation, the burden of proof was on those who in 1911 argued for its repeal; whereas in Massachusetts, which has done well for many years with local option and high license, the burden would still be on those who should argue for state prohibition. In the discussions of the game of football a few years ago the burden of proof before an audience of athletes would have been on those who declared that the game must be changed; with college faculties and men of like mind the burden of proof would have been on those who defended the old game. In each case that comes up, you cannot place the burden of proof until you know whether the people you are trying to convince have any prepossessions in the matter: if they have, the burden of proof is on him who attempts to change those prepossessions; if they have not, the burden is on him who is proposing to change existing views or existing policies.
In no case, however, with a popular audience is it very safe to depend much on the burden of proof; almost always it is better to jump in and actively build up the argument on your own side. In argument, as in strategy, take the offensive whenever you can.
Notebook. Note whether the burden of proof is with you or against you, taking into account the probable prepossessions of the audience you have selected.
Illustration. In the argument for the introduction of the commission