[BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 137 
The Circumstances.—The first statement referred to the original 
purchase, and in the intervening twelve months B expended $1,500 on 
the buildings and $500 on the purchase of an adjoining garden. 
The Harmonization.—Such an advance in cost will ordinarily be 
due to expenditure in the interval either on the buildings or on the 
purchase of additional ground area; hence one may be tempted to 
suggest as a proper harmonization of the discrepancy that it is due to 
the expenditure of $2,000 in the intervening twelve months “either 
on the buildings, or on additional ground area or on both.” In this 
case, however, such a well-meant effort to discharge gun-shot at the 
target rather than a rifle-ball at the bull’s-eye is scientifically inadmis- 
sible. The suggested harmonization, though reasonable enough, is in 
fact by no means the most probable one. In actual experience the 
number of cases in which the previous cost of a villa is increased by 
expenditure either on buildings or additional ground area is far greater 
than the number of cases in which such an increase is due to expenditure 
on both buildings and area; hence there is a far greater probability that 
the increase of $2,000 in this case was due to expenditure either on 
buildings or area than on both, and accordingly the last alternative must 
be dropped from the above harmonization. Again, in actual experience, 
the number of cases in which the previous cost of a villa is increased 
by expenditure on the buildings is far greater than the number of cases 
in which such an increase is due to the purchase of additional ground 
area, and there is a correspondingly greater probability that the increase 
of $2,000 in this case was due to expenditure on buildings rather than on 
area. Therefore, the first alternative in the above harmonization must 
also be dropped, and the most reasonable and probable harmonization 
of the discrepancy must needs be that in the interval of twelve months 
$2,000 was spent on the buildings; which harmonization is contrary 
to the facts. 
The following twenty-two cases are submitted to the reader, with- 
out mention of the attendant circumstances, in order that he may, if he 
so wish, attempt harmonizations on his own account and compare them 
subsequently with the actual circumstances. 
THE DISCREPANCIES. 
Case 5.—B stated (1) that C usually dines at the Café Wallace; 
and (2) that C usually dines at the Exchange Restaurant. 
Case 6.—(1) B stated that he accompanied C and D to a certain 
point; (2) C stated that B accompanied D to the point and C went 
thither alone. 
