Any time someone advocates a change in the status quo, the burden of proof rests with the individual recommending a change. The first task we face is to establish a need for change, and this is bounded by our understanding of the scope of the change being considered.

We recognize two kinds of needs-instrumental and absolute needs. An instrumental need is one that depends on an appeal to some principle or value that the implementation of that need will guarantee. The claim, "I need $350 for a new suit," is an instrumental need based on the importance of making a good impression in my next interview. An absolute need is one that is self-justified. The claim, "We need to separate influence by money in politics from legitimate lobbying efforts," instantiates the principles of transparency in one's petitioning of the government.

The scope of a solution to a problem is determined by two sets of factors. The first set of factors is inherent in the problem itself. Increasing processing speeds in computers, for example, is limited by the science underlying the technology as well as the state of the technology itself.

The second set of factors involves our own abilities and the circumstances themselves. A lack of time, money or expertise may limit what can be done to solve a problem as effectively as the limits of our technology. Understanding what can be done-in both senses-is necessary for effecting a practicable solution for any problem.

The Nature of the Problem

While an audience may recognize that some problem exists, they do not always understand what exactly is the problem. In prospective documents-proposals, recommendation reports, and feasibility studies-it is necessary to specify the nature of the problem. This is usually done through a description or narrative of the situation that details the causes and effects of the problem.

Offering Acceptable Solutions

Successfully solving a problem is quite different than satisfactorily solving a problem. This distinction is admirably expressed in James Madison's Federalist Number X. Concerned with the conflicts caused by factions that prevent the pursuit of the common good in our government, he rejects a technical solution that would end factions themselves because this would create more problems than the initial one. Because the proposed solution is unacceptable, he advocates a way to ameliorate the effects of factions, rather than their elimination. A solution must be both successful (it works) and satisfactory (it is normatively acceptable).

Acceptability is typically achieved through the use of definitions, rule-case reasoning, and means-end reasoning.

Studying the Literature