7.

Roughing Out the Argument

You have made an outline of the relevant facts; you have located the laws
or rules that apply to those facts; and, finally, you have identified the issues
in the case. You are now ready to take the next step in pre-work: roughing
out your arguments. This, in a sense, would be like drawing up your plans
before actually constructing your building. Roughing out your arguments
would give you an overall picture of your presentation and provide purpose
and direction to your writing.

Balanced Presentation
But first, take a familiar story that begs for an effective argument. A son
failed in one of his major subjects in college because he spent too much time
with his barkadas. His father warned him about such a result but he did not
mind him. When it happened, the father was so angry that he refused to give
his son money for re-enrollment. The son now approaches his father to plead
his case with him.
If you were the son, how would you present your case? Here is one way:

Dad, I want to re-enroll this semester [he speaks of what he

wants to do, but not about what his dad wants to do; and he fails
to state the issue that his dad has to decide]. I would be happy if
you let me re-enroll, dad, despite what happened [he speaks of
what will make him happy, but omits to mention of what will make
his dad happy].
If you don’t let me re-enroll, I will surely be unable to finish
my studies. [Shifting the blame.] How could you do that to me?
 [Shifting the burden of explanation.]

Do you think the father would give in to his son’s request? Chances are he
would not. The son wronged his dad by ignoring his valid warning. When the
son failed to value the father’s effort in financing his schooling by not
studying diligently, his father’s moral and social obligation to finance his
schooling should be deemed over. Meanwhile, the son did not plan his
argument ahead of time and did not see the issue from the father’s point of
view. His efforts were doomed from the start.
If he prepared well, the son would probably have followed a different tack.
He would have said instead:

Dad, please consider letting me re-enroll. I made a mistake

when I ignored your warnings concerning my barkadas. I
hope you could forgive me.
I really miscalculated my chances in that subject. But as
you can see, I passed my other major subjects with high
grades. I have learned my lesson and I promise not to repeat
my mistake. In fact, as you can see, I have stopped going out
with my barkadas altogether.
Dad, could you give me another chance?

Does this approach have a better chance? Definitely.

It is forthright, honest, and realistic. And it shows to the father what he can
still do for his son after what he did. First, the son stated clearly what the
issue is and that it is up to his father to decide it. (Dad, please consider letting
me re-enroll.) Next, he acknowledged the argument against him (I made a
mistake when I ignored your warnings) but he immediately argued that it was
a mistake his father could choose to overlook (I hope you could forgive me).
Then, he brought up the arguments in his favor (I passed my other major
subjects with high grades … I promise not to repeat my mistake … I have
stopped going out with my barkadas altogether). Finally, he appealed to his
father’s good sense (Dad, could you give me another chance?).
Any attempt to persuade someone to accept your opinion or point of view
must, much like the above, consider the structure of a balanced thesis
presentation:

First –– A clear statement of your thesis or where you stand on

the issue to be resolved;
Second –– The arguments that can be made against your
position but with an explanation that those arguments do not
doom such position;
Third –– The arguments in favor of your position; and
Fourth –– An appeal to the good sense of the person or persons
who will resolve the issue. (In writing a decision, this fourth
element may, of course, be omitted by the judge since he is the
person who will resolve the issue. Nonetheless, the judge must
convince the reader that his decision is correct.)

The above structure represents the psychology of every balanced attempt

to win others to your point of view in a controversy. But how do you guard
yourself against the mindless approach that characterizes many legal
writings? There is only one answer. Complete your pre-work. Plan and
rough out a balanced approach to your arguments before writing them
up. When you have done these, you would be able to scout the whole terrain
that your writing would cover, aided by a map in your hand. You would be
able to see the relevance and strengths of your argument and decide how to
most effectively present them when you write.
How do you rough out your arguments so you could see a broad picture of
how they look when you are finished? Since the main thing in roughing out
your arguments is to see how they balance, use a balance sheet format.
Recall that when you sorted out the facts of your case and looked up the
laws or rules that applied to those facts, what guided you was your “statement
of the issue” that the case presented. Now, however, in crafting your
arguments, you need to be guided by your thesis statement or proposition. As
counsel for Ronald, your thesis statement would be: “Ronald did not rape
Julia.” Write it clearly at the top center of your balance sheet.
 (Where You Stand on the Issue)
RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

What is the point in adopting as your balance sheet heading your thesis
statement that “Ronald did not rape Julia,” rather than your statement of the
issue, “whether or not Ronald raped Julia.” The point is that the thesis
statement represents the goal you set for your arguments. It will give you
direction in shaping and coloring your arguments.
Next, write on the left column of your balance sheet the arguments that can
be made against you, and on the right column write how such arguments do
not doom your case. In addition, write also on the right column an
enumeration of the positive arguments in your favor. Finally, state
underneath the arguments your closing statement, an appeal to the good sense
of the reader.

(Where You Stand on the Issue)

RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

(Arguments Against You) (Arguments in Your Favor)

(Appeal to Your Reader’s Good Sense)

 You need to write only the gist of the arguments against you or for you. It
is during the write-up stage that you will develop and expand these
arguments and make them convincing. Still, your statement of each of your
arguments must be concise, clear, and logical so that, looking at them on your
balance sheet, you will be able to see the whole picture.

Anatomy of a Legal Argument

But where will you get the arguments with which you will fill up your
above balance sheet?
You should understand what an argument is. An argument is a reason you
offer to prove your thesis or proposition. For example, in the son’s case, his
thesis or proposition is that “his dad should let him re-enroll in school.” What
reason can the son offer to prove his thesis correct? One reason the son can
offer is that, “although he failed in one subject, he did not do so badly since
he got high grades in his other subjects.” He still merits support from his dad.
In the rape case, your thesis or proposition might be that Ronald did not
rape Julia. What reason can you offer to prove your thesis correct? A reason
that you could offer is that, although Mario lived near where the rape
supposedly took place, he did not hear Julia’s outcry. Is this a good reason?
Yes, since it makes sense.
The great bulk of legal arguments are in the mold of the classic categorical
syllogism. A most basic example of this is the following:
Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Jose is a man.
Conclusion: Jose is mortal.
The major premise, all men are mortal, is a statement of a generally
accepted rule or truth. The minor premise, Jose is a man, is a statement that
brings a particular thing or individual within the class or situation covered by
the generally accepted rule or truth. The conclusion, Jose is mortal, is a
statement that follows after the major and minor premises, deducing that the
generally accepted rule or truth applies to the particular thing or individual.
Here is an example. Arguing from common experience, a witness can be
discredited in this manner:
 People who lie cannot be believed.
Armando lied in his testimony.
Therefore, he cannot be believed.
You need to understand that every sound legal argument is a
combination of the right rule and the right fact. For example, what
argument can you make if your thesis or proposition is that “Jose should be
punished for crossing the red light.”
First, you can state the rule that “Crossing the red light is punishable by
law.”
Next, you can state the fact in Jose’s case that “Jose crossed the red light.”
Finally, you can state your conclusion that “Therefore, Jose should be
punished by law.”
To sum up: Crossing the red light is punishable by law. Jose crossed the
red light. Therefore, Jose shall be punished by law.
The above argument consists of three statements: the rule statement
(crossing the red light is punishable by law), the case fact statement (Jose
crossed the red light), and the conclusion statement (therefore, Jose should
be punished by law).

The Key Fact in Rules

You will note that the rule statement (crossing the red light is punishable
by law) has a fact component for its subject, namely, “crossing the red
light.” This is logical because all rules identify the facts on which they will
operate or apply. We will call this fact component of the rule (crossing the
red light in our example) its “key fact.” It is a key fact because its presence
in the case of Jose opens up such case to the application of the rule.
To further illustrate this, the law that punishes theft identifies the key fact
to which the law applies. It applies, according to the penal code, to “the
taking, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of
persons nor force upon things, of the personal property of another without
the latter’s consent.” If the case fact involving a particular individual, say
Cesar, shows that he took the property of another under the circumstances
described in the law, then the law will apply to Cesar, given that its key fact
is present in his case. When the key fact component of the rule statement is
present in the case fact statement, you have a positive match. The rule applies
to the case fact. Thus:
Any person who, with intent to gain but without violence
against or intimidation of person nor force upon things, shall
take the property of another without the latter’s consent, shall
be punished for theft.
Cesar took, with intent to gain, Mario’s cellphone from his
desk when his back was turned and without his consent.
Consequently, Cesar shall be punished for theft.
What argument can you make, on the other hand, if your thesis or
proposition is in the negative, namely that David cannot be punished for
crossing the red light? First, you can state the rule that “beating the red light
is punishable by law” (the rule that governs beating the red light) “but
crossing the yellow light does not amount to crossing the red light” (an
interpretative rule that excludes crossing the yellow light from the meaning of
crossing the red light). Next, you can state the case fact that “David actually
crossed a yellow light.” Finally, you can state the conclusion that “Therefore,
David cannot be punished by law.” Thus––
Crossing the red light is punishable by law. But crossing the
yellow light does not amount to crossing the red light. David
actually crossed a yellow light. Therefore, David cannot be
punished by law.
The key fact on which the general rule operates is “crossing the red light.”
But this is not found in the particular case of David for he “actually crossed a
yellow light.” Consequently, the punishment due to persons who cross red
lights does not apply to David. His crossing a yellow light repels the
operation of the law, producing a negative conclusion.
Let us take another example. The law gives the right to bear the surnames
of the father and the mother only to legitimate children. If the issue is
whether or not the law will apply to a particular child, the key fact in the law
(the fact that the child needs to be legitimate) must be present in his case. If
the case fact is that Justo is an “illegitimate child,” the law does not apply to
him. Justo has no right to bear the surnames of his father and his mother. The
rule does not apply to his case fact.
 The above arguments, positive as well as negative, typify the classic
categorical syllogism, applied to legal writing. This is made up of three
statements: (1) the statement of a rule that applies to a given fact or set of
facts (the rule statement); (2) the statement of the fact of a particular case
that opens up such case or closes it to the application of the rule (the case fact
statement); and (3) the conclusion that the rule applies or does not apply to
the particular case (the conclusion statement).

The Case Fact

As already stated, rules usually identify the key fact upon which such rules
will apply. Only when this “key fact” exists in a particular case, i.e., in the
“case fact” will the rule apply to such case.
Is it the rule that dictates what the fact of a particular case ought to be or is
it the fact of the case that dictates what the rule ought to be? Of course, the
answer is that it is the fact of a particular case that determines what will
govern it, not the other way around. In our first example, we can apply the
rule that “crossing the red light is punishable by law” to the case of Jose
because “Jose crossed the red light.”
When preparing your argument, therefore, begin by ascertaining the fact or
facts of your case. Once you know the facts, you can check these out again
whatever rule is proposed to govern them. But it is not that easy.
Theoretically, the facts of a case do not change. Facts are facts and you
cannot alter them. Unfortunately, however, putting your finger on the correct
facts of a case can be difficult since the evidence of those facts can be marred
by the witness’ bias, by human error in observing them, by lack of ability to
communicate what one observed, and, not too rarely, even by a motive to lie.
And, even when the correct facts of a particular case or its “case fact” has
been ascertained, you will observe that the “rule” that applies to it can
significantly change as you turn that case fact around, showing its different
hues and contours. For this reason, prepare to deal with issues regarding what
your case fact truly is.

Meaning of “Rule”
Once you have ascertained your case fact, where will you find the “rule,”
the key fact of which is in favor of or against your case fact and which would
either produce the positive or negative conclusion that you desire?
The term “rule” used in this discussion has a broad scope. As previously
mentioned in Chapter 5, Knowing the Applicable Law or Rule, includes
legislated rules like:
a. Constitutional provisions. Where the fact of the case is that the
government has taken possession of your client’s land for road building
without paying him for it, you can invoke the Constitutional provision that
“private property shall not be taken except upon payment of just
compensation” to prove your thesis that your client is entitled to
compensation.
b. Statutory provisions. Where your opponent’s client pleads lack of
liability for a wrong he has committed because he did not know that the law
forbade it, you can invoke the provision of the civil code that “ignorance of
the law excuses no one” to prove your thesis that he is liable.
c. Rules of Court provisions. Where the accused offers money to the
complainant for dropping the case, you can cite the provision of the Rules of
Court that “an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of guilt” to prove your thesis that the
accused is guilty of the charge.
But the “rule” also includes case laws or judicial precedents. Judicial
precedents are the most convenient source of argument. The hardworking
lawyer or student, the plodder, will discover a treasury of arguments in the
law reports. In real life, no problem is new. Somewhere, the issues you now
face have been argued and resolved in a variety of ways. All you have to do
is tap the law books where they are indexed and preserved.
Take for example the defense of alibi. If your opponent invokes it, you can
easily put it down by invoking an abundance of precedents that says:

The defense of alibi, as a rule, is considered with suspicion

and is always received with caution, not only because it is
inherently weak and unreliable, but because it can be easily
fabricated. (People v. Paraiso, 349 SCRA 335.) Alibi cannot
prevail over positive identification of the accused by the
prosecution witnesses who have no motive to lie. (People v.
Lovedorial, 349 SCRA 402.)
 If you are on the other side, a counterargument exists:
Alibi can be believed where it can be shown that the
accused was at another place at the time of the commission of
the offense and it was physically impossible for him to be at
the place where it happened. (People v. Plana, 370 SCRA 542.)
And when the prosecution is unable to establish the guilt of
the accused, alibi assumes importance. (People v. Morales, 363
SCRA 342.)

The “rule” also includes widely accepted truths that derive from logic,
common sense, or even common experience. For example, if the issue is
whether or not the accused killed the victim in self-defense, you can put
down such defense by evidence that shows that he died of a gunshot wound
on his back. Common sense dictates that shooting the victim on his back is
incompatible with defending oneself. Another good example is the truth that
“it would be improbable for a barrio girl of tender age and definitely
inexperienced in sexual matters to fabricate a charge of rape for no reason at
all.” This is a “truth” developed from observance of common life in the
countryside. You can invoke it as a form of rule in arguing the credibility of
the complainant in a rape case.

Roughed Out Arguments

Having seen the anatomy of every sound legal argument, you should be
ready, if you were counsel for Ronald, to rough out your argument on the
rape charge against him.
On the left column of your balance sheet, one argument that your opponent
can make out against Ronald is that “vaginal lacerations usually found in
rape victims were found in Julia.” Spelled out, the applicable rule here would
be that “vaginal lacerations are usually found in rape victims.” The case fact
is that “Julia had vaginal lacerations,” the conclusion would be that she
probably had been raped.
Ronald might in turn state on the opposite column of his balance sheet his
counter argument that “as a virgin Julia could have lacerations during
consented sex.” Spelled out, the applicable rule here is that “true, vaginal
lacerations are usually found in rape victims but (stating an exception to the
rule) such lacerations can also be found in consented sex with a virgin.”
Applying this rule to the case fact that “Julia was a virgin,” the conclusion
would be that “the lacerations found in her do not necessarily indicate rape.”
When placed in your balance sheet of arguments, the above should read:

(Where You Stand on the Issue)

RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

(Arguments Against You) (Arguments in Your Favor)

Vaginal lacerations usually As a virgin, Julia could have

found in rape victims were vaginal lacerations during
found in Julia. consented sex.

Some students who were given the task of making an outline of their
arguments in the rape case showed a tendency to state only either the case
fact statement or the rule statement in their arguments. And a good number of
them did not know how to look for meaningful points that support their thesis
or proposition. They confessed that their undergraduate courses simply did
not give them that kind of preparation and training.
For example, a student regarded as a strong argument to prove that Ronald
did not rape Julia the point that “he and she were sweethearts.”

(Where You Stand on the Issue)

RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

(Arguments Against You) (Arguments in Your Favor)

He and she were sweethearts.

It might be a good argument but it states only the case fact in his argument,
omitting the applicable rule, which, presumably, is that “it is not likely for a
man to rape his sweetheart.” The better way to rough out the argument is to
say, “Being sweethearts, it was not likely for Ronald to rape Julia.” Both the
case fact and the rule are incorporated in this outline argument.
A student, taking the side of the prosecution, attempted to refute Ronald’s
above argument but he simply stated as counterargument the case fact that
“Ronald was only a suitor.”

(Where You Stand on the Issue)

RONALD RAPED JULIA

(Arguments in
(Arguments Against You)
Your Favor)

Being sweethearts, it was not likely for Ronald was only

Ronald to rape Julia. a suitor.

Since the student did not state the applicable rule in his outline argument,
he could very well end up saying, “it is likely for a suitor to rape the girl he
courts.” But, not being consistent with human experience, this argument is
not plausible.
Probably, the student’s unstated rule is that “uncorroborated claims, when
denied by the adverse party, may be considered self-serving.” In such a case,
he should combine this with his “case fact” and produce the counterargument
that: “But, uncorroborated, Ronald’s claim is self-serving since Julia never
admitted it.” An alternate counterargument is that: “Being only a suitor,
Ronald was capable of committing the rape.”

(Where You Stand on the Issue)

RONALD RAPED JULIA

(Arguments (Arguments in Your Favor)

 Against You)

Being
But, uncorroborated, Ronald’s claim is
sweethearts, it
self-serving since Julia never admitted
was not likely
it. Or, being only a suitor, he was
for Ronald to
capable of the crime.
rape Julia.

The lesson here is that you must think your argument through to its
essential elements so you could test its validity or soundness.
Let us go to another example, this time of a student in search of an
argument to support his view that Ronald raped Julia. The student wrote this
point in his favor: “Julia ignored Ronald during the wedding party so this
made him feel bad.”

(Where You Stand on the Issue)

RONALD RAPED JULIA

(Arguments
(Arguments in Your Favor)
Against You)

Julia ignored Ronald during the wedding

party, making him feel bad.

Is the above a good argument? No. It does not appear to have any
reasonable relation to the student’s thesis that Ronald raped Julia. The beauty
of a balance sheet format is that your thesis, “Ronald raped Julia,” is written
prominently on top of your proposed arguments. To test the validity of the
argument that the student raised, just see if his thesis follows from it. Thus: if
he says “Julia ignored Ronald during the wedding party, making him feel
bad,” could you deduce from this that “Ronald raped Julia?” When the two
ideas do not connect, the argument is invalid.
 Below are the other roughed out arguments and the closing statement that
Ronald could use. See if they connect to the writer’s thesis or proposition.

(Where You Stand on the Issue)

RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

(Arguments in Your
(Arguments Against You)
Favor)

Because women will rarely But not when the woman’s

admit to having been raped testimony, like that of
unless true, a rape victim’s Julia, is inherently
testimony can stand alone. incredible.

Absence of bruises on her

body despite rough
grounds negates rape by
use of force.

Being a barrio woman, it is

likely that someone like
Ronald walked her home
at that late hour.

(Appeal to Your Reader’s Good Sense)

It is but fair that testimony inconsistent with common
experience is not believed.

Creative Thinking
When you have exhausted legislated rules and court precedents in search
of suitable arguments that will support your thesis or proposition and these do
not satisfy you, try creative thinking. Let your subconscious mind take over
the problem. This process often yields indigenous solutions and pleasant
surprises. And the steps are simple.
First, be sure that your mind gets all the data and inputs about the case that
your source materials would yield. Working like a computer, the mind will
process only those facts that have been put into it.
Second, pose the problem to your mind. For example, ask your mind the
question: “How can I prove that Ronald did not rape Julia?” Repeat this
question to yourself a number of times until you are satisfied that it has been
planted into your mind.
Third, forget about the case. Take time out and let your subconscious
mind do the work. Go to sleep. You will be surprised that the answer will pop
out of your head in the middle of what you are doing. Be prepared to jot it
down immediately.

Arguments that Build Up

Apart from being able to form a combination of the right “rule” and the
right “case fact” to support your thesis or proposition, here is a list of other
arguments that you can use to build up your side of an issue:
a. The favorable testimony comes from a credible witness.
The testimonies of those who are involved in the case or their
relatives and friends are often regarded as partisan. Those with no
bias, one way or the other, are excellent witnesses. For example,
the medico-legal expert and the farm owner, Perez, in the rape
case have no bias or motive to testify falsely in the case.
b. The party’s version is inherently credible and consistent
with common experience. The truth of narrative stories is often
judged by its compatibility with common experience. For
example, if the fact that Ronald and Julia were sweethearts can be
established, you can believe his claim that they forgot themselves
when one evening they stopped and sat down in the middle of a
rice field.
c. All the elements or requisites of a valid claim or defense
 have been proved. Some laws prescribe factual elements or
requisites in order for claims or defenses to be operative. You
make a good argument when you prove that you have established
them all. For example, the prosecution in the case against Ronald
can show that it has established all the elements of the crime of
rape to warrant conviction.

Arguments that Destroy

Pointing out that the opposite party invokes the wrong “rule” or that he has
failed to prove the “case fact” component of his argument are the basic ways
of destroying his thesis or proposition. Below are some additional arguments
that provide the same result.
a. The argument raised is irrelevant. An argument is
irrelevant when it does not help resolve the issue one way or the
other. When your opponent says, “Ronald is immoral and
irresponsible because he refuses to marry Julia even when he
admits that he took her innocence from her,” you can say, “The
argument is irrelevant since being irresponsible does not make a
man a rapist.”
b. The argument has little weight given the other
considerations in the case. Here you can assume that your
opponent has made a valid argument but you hasten to state that
other considerations outweigh that argument. Thus, when your
opponent says, “Ronald’s failure to see Julia’s parents to explain
his side shows his guilt,” you could say, “That failure can be
explained. Their sons would have killed Ronald if he immediately
went to see them after their daughter cried rape.”
c. The argument is baseless. A claim made with no fact to
support it is baseless. When your opponent says, “Julia is a good,
innocent girl who would not cry rape if it were untrue,” you could
say, “But, that is baseless since there is no evidence to show that
she is good and innocent.”
d. The argument is contrary to common experience. As a
rule, claims that go against ordinary human experience are bizarre
 and cannot be believed. When your opponent says, “Julia was not
afraid to walk home alone through empty rice fields near
midnight,” you can say, “That is unbelievable. No woman in her
right mind will do that.”
e. The argument is inconsistent with undeniable facts. No
assertion can defeat facts that cannot lie. When your opponent
says, “Julia wasted no time to file her complaint against Ronald,”
you can say, “The record shows that she showed up at the police
station two (2) days after the alleged rape.”
f. The argument is inconsistent with a prior claim. Persons
who say one thing now and another thing later cannot be relied on
to tell the truth. When your opponent says, “Julia testified that
Ronald was her suitor,” you can say, “She once admitted to a
friend that she was his sweetheart.”
The above enumerations of arguments that build up or destroy are of
course not intended to be exclusive. The mind and the imagination are
limitless and no list such as what has been drawn up above can contain them.
Further, this book uses simple cases for easy illustrations but real cases can
be complex and can bring forth arguments that cannot be captured in a box.
You must consider other arguments or reasons and use them so long as they
tend to support the stand you have taken. If you learn the basic lessons in this
book, doubtless, you can handle the demands of more difficult and complex
legal writings.

Pre-work Reviewed
As pre-work comes to an end, a summary of the steps taken under it should
round up the discussion. Pre-work consists of the following steps:
a. Ascertain the legal dispute. After going over your materials
quickly, do you detect the presence of a legal dispute where one
claims that another has violated his right and where this other
denies such violation? Rewrite your statement of the legal dispute
in the format of an issue and put this down in writing to guide you
in making an outline of the facts and in looking for the laws and
rules that apply to such facts.
 b. Make an outline of the relevant facts. Now go over your
materials again, this time more closely, and make an outline of
the relevant facts of the case, discarding the irrelevant.
Afterwards, complete your work on the facts by arranging them in
correct order.
c. Identify the Issues. Identify the principal issue or issues
raised in that case and, if present, the subordinate controlling
issues as well. Make a list of all the other issues that the parties to
the case raised, then choose from these what are relevant to the
resolution of the legal dispute or disputes involved.
d. Rough out your argument. Rough out your argument on a
paper, using the balance sheet format. Write on top of the balance
sheet the stand you take on the relevant issue presented. Write on
the left column of the balance sheet the arguments against you
and on the right column your refutation of such arguments plus
the positive arguments in your favor. State only the gist of those
arguments. At the bottom of the balance sheet, write your closing
statement, usually an appeal to the good sense of the reader.

Writing Exercises

If you did the work suggested in this book, you would no doubt have
identified the principal issue or issues as well as the subordinate issues that
the legal dispute or disputes in the case of the girl that a neighbor’s dog
attacked present.
Now, decide whether or not you will recommend to your client, Mr.
Banag, the filing of a lawsuit against Mr. Sison. Rough out on paper the
arguments that you can use in support of the advice that you choose to
recommend to him.