4. _What is the pivotal point in the whole question?_
5. _What are the subordinate points?_
II. THE EVIDENCE
1. _The witnesses as to facts_
(_a_) Is each witness impartial? What is his relation to the subject at issue?
(_b_) Is he mentally competent?
(_c_) Is he morally credible?
(_d_) Is he in a position to know the facts? Is he an eye-witness?
(_e_) Is he a willing witness?
(_f_) Is his testimony contradicted?
(_g_) Is his testimony corroborated?
(_h_) Is his testimony contrary to well-known facts or general principles?
(_i_) Is it probable?
2. _The authorities cited as evidence_
(_a_) Is the authority well-recognized as such?
(_b_) What constitutes him an authority?
(_c_) Is his interest in the case an impartial one?
(_d_) Does he state his opinion positively and clearly?
(_e_) Are the non-personal authorities cited (books, etc.) reliable and unprejudiced?
3. _The facts adduced as evidence_
(_a_) Are they sufficient in number to constitute proof?
(_b_) Are they weighty enough in character?
(_c_) Are they in harmony with reason?
(_d_) Are they mutually harmonious or contradictory?
(_e_) Are they admitted, doubted, or disputed?
4. _The principles adduced as evidence_
(_a_) Are they axiomatic?
(_b_) Are they truths of general experience?
(_c_) Are they truths of special experience?
(_d_) Are they truths arrived at by experiment?
Were such experiments special or general?
Were the experiments authoritative and conclusive?
III. THE REASONING
1. _Inductions_
(_a_) Are the facts numerous enough to warrant accepting the generalization as being conclusive?
(_b_) Do the facts agree _only_ when considered in the light of this explanation as a conclusion?
(_c_) Have you overlooked any contradictory facts?
(_d_) Are the contradictory facts sufficiently explained when this inference is accepted as true?
(_e_) Are all contrary positions shown to be relatively untenable?
(_f_) Have you accepted mere opinions as facts?
2. _Deductions_
(_a_) Is the law or general principle a well-established one?
(_b_) Does the law or principle clearly include the fact you wish to deduce from it, or have you strained the inference?
(_c_) Does the importance of the law or principle warrant so important an inference?
(_d_) Can the deduction be shown to prove too much?
3. _Parallel cases_
(_a_) Are the cases parallel at enough points to warrant an inference of similar cause or effect?
(_b_) Are the cases parallel at the vital point at issue?
(_c_) Has the parallelism been strained?
(_d_) Are there no other parallels that would point to a stronger contrary conclusion?
4. _Inferences_