On Sophistical Refutations   

the elementary rules that have been stated before' should be employed.

One resource, on the other hand, is speed; for when people are left

behind they look ahead less. Moreover, there is anger and

contentiousness, for when agitated everybody is less able to take care

of himself. Elementary rules for producing anger are to make a show of

the wish to play foul, and to be altogether shameless. Moreover, there

is the putting of one's questions alternately, whether one has more

than one argument leading to the same conclusion, or whether one has

arguments to show both that something is so, and that it is not so:

for the result is that he has to be on his guard at the same time

either against more than one line, or against contrary lines, of

argument. In general, all the methods described before of producing

concealment are useful also for purposes of contentious argument:

for the object of concealment is to avoid detection, and the object of

this is to deceive.

To counter those who refuse to grant whatever they suppose to help

one's argument, one should put the question negatively, as though

desirous of the opposite answer, or at any rate as though one put

the question without prejudice; for when it is obscure what answer one

wants to secure, people are less refractory. Also when, in dealing

with particulars, a man grants the individual case, when the induction

is done you should often not put the universal as a question, but take

it for granted and use it: for sometimes people themselves suppose

that they have granted it, and also appear to the audience to have

done so, for they remember the induction and assume that the questions

could not have been put for nothing. In cases where there is no term

to indicate the universal, still you should avail yourself of the

resemblance of the particulars to suit your purpose; for resemblance

often escapes detection. Also, with a view to obtaining your

premiss, you ought to put it in your question side by side with its

contrary. E.g. if it were necessary to secure the admission that 'A

man should obey his father in everything', ask 'Should a man obey