Make a case?

Reader question:

Please explain this headline: “Seth Meyers makes the case Donald Trump may not last a full year.” Makes a case?

My comments:

Case, as in a court case, a case study – not coffin case, for sure.

First off, Seth Meyers is an American comedian who hosts a late-night talk show that airs on NBC. Like most other late-night talk show hosts, Meyers spends a lot of time lampooning President Donald Trump.

Yeah, Trump is that kind of worthy President.

Anyways, for Meyers to “make the case Trump may not last the full year” is for him, in other words, to make such a prediction and give the reasons why he thinks thus.

Like, for a lawyer builds up a case against a criminal. In the courtroom, lawyers make a case either for or against someone. For example, one lawyer may be making the case against someone for murder by telling the judge and the audience that he has all the evidences to support his or her accusation, what with a smoking gun, a knife bearing the fingerprint, a glove with the murderer’s blood on it, etc.

The defense lawyer, on the other hand, may argue for the accused by giving all the reasons why he or she believes the accused person does not do it, with, for example, an alibi that the accused is not present at the scene of crime at the time the murder happens. The lawyer brings out witnesses to prove that the accused is watching TV, say, Late Night with Seth Meyers when the said murder takes place.

Anyways, to make a case is to make a full argument for or against somebody and lists all the reasons why this is so. Give all the reasons, that is, and make a full case, a complete case.

Lest the judge and the audience not be convinced.

All right, here are media examples of different people making different cases, giving their reasons why they think something is the best thing to do:

1. One of the country’s most senior mathematicians addressed the National Press Club in a cotton shirt on Wednesday, because when she wears suits at work functions she is often mistaken for a member of the wait staff.

“Of the professors of the mathematical sciences in Australia, only 9 per cent are women,” the Sydney University Professor said.

“Why? How did we, as a modern, progressive society, let this happen? And what effect does this have on our scientific achievements as a nation?”

These are questions Professor Joshi, University of New South Wales marine ecology and ecotoxicology professor Emma Johnston and University of South Australia research and innovation vice chancellor Tanya Monro spent an hour at the Press Club trying to answer.

Their theories were not surprising — policies that saw women forced to leave the workforce once they married, women in later generations juggling work and family, women feeling isolated in male-dominated classrooms and faculty offices, underpinned by an overall bias against women in science.

Professor Johnston outlined what she argues are simple solutions.

“[Make] regulatory changes, structural changes increasing early career job security, providing parental care that is available to both parents, creating flexibility in the workplace, enable career breaks with guaranteed re-entry.”

She also made a case for grant and journal submissions to be made anonymously.

“We now have quite a few international journals that have adopted blind review processes,” she said.

“Which isn’t that when the paper is published there's no name on it … it’s that through the process of review where a decision is made as to the quality of the work and the appropriateness of that work for the journal … the identity of the authors of that grant proposal or that journal are removed.”

Professor Johnston argued eliminating bias was one of the biggest tasks the science community faced because it required people to admit it exists.

Professor Monro offered a helpful tool for identifying double standards, noting that she was often introduced as the “wearer of shoes that I design or the mother of three boys.”

“Try it out with your male colleagues and you’ll see how strange it feels,” she said.

- Professor Nalini Joshi, mistaken for wait staff at functions, highlights gender bias in Australian science, ABC.net.au, March 30, 2016.

2. Jeremy Corbyn has warned there could be a “bonfire” of workers’ rights if the UK votes to leave the EU in June.

The Labour leader claimed the Conservatives would “dump” equal pay, annual leave and maternity pay rights.

And he did not think “too many people” had come to the UK from inside the EU.

David Cameron said they disagreed on “lots of things” but welcomed Mr Corbyn’s backing for EU membership - as Leave campaigners said the Labour leader “does not really mean it”.

Making his first major speech of the referendum campaign, Mr Corbyn stood by past criticisms of the EU but said Britain had to remain in to fight for social reform.

...

In his speech, Mr Corbyn argued that there was “a strong socialist case for staying in the European Union, just as there is also a powerful socialist case for reform and progressive change in Europe”.

Asked why he had been converted to the EU cause, after speaking against it so many times in the past and voting to come out in the 1975 referendum, he said the Labour Party and trade unions had “overwhelmingly” decided to back EU membership “and that’s the party I lead and that’s the position I am putting forward”.

But he said there was “nothing half-hearted” about Labour’s campaign and said he would continue to make the case for membership in the run up to polling day.

Mr Corbyn told the audience of Labour supporters: “You cannot build a better world unless you engage with the world, build allies and deliver change. The EU, warts and all, has proved itself to be a crucial international framework to do that.

“That is why I will be am backing Britain to remain in Europe and I hope you will too.”

- EU referendum: Jeremy Corbyn warns of workers’ rights ‘bonfire’ if UK leaves, BBC.com, April 14, 2016.

3. Debating the best of anything is often a silly exercise. It’s all subjective. People like things for different reasons. There are no right answers. Etc, etc.

With that in mind, let’s get this out of the way: The 2017 World Series is making a strong case as the best ever. Even with (potentially) two games left, it seems like it’ll be hard for this series to go flat after what it’s given us so far.

All the ingredients for all-time greatness are there. It’s up to the Astros and Dodgers to complete the recipe.

We’ve had a sharp, brisk pitchers’ duel (Game 1), a back-and-forth thriller (Game 2) and a back-and-forth-to-the-extreme thriller (Game 5). We’ve had clutch hitting. We’ve had clutch pitching. We’ve had a ton of homers. We’ve had extra innings. We’ve had a walk-off.

It’s been the type of series that holds the attention of fans with no rooting interest, as well as the casual fans who only tune in during October. Both are key in producing an all-time great World Series.

- World Series 2017: Dodgers, Astros making case for best Fall Classic ever, SportingNews.com, October 31, 2017.

本文僅代表作者本人觀點，與本網立場無關。歡迎大家討論學術問題，尊重他人，禁止人身攻擊和發布一切違反國家現行法律法規的內容。

About the author:

Zhang Xin is Trainer at chinadaily.com.cn. He has been with China Daily since 1988, when he graduated from Beijing Foreign Studies University. Write him at: zhangxin@chinadaily.com.cn, or raise a question for potential use in a future column.

（作者：張欣 編輯：丹妮）