#\^Bgic. 
 
 mVO0% M.A,, D.Sft 
 
 II0LL4NI> 
 
 Jill^Ujj^ 
 
 v m n iKftMm n t mtmn i m it mm m i-' t^nsi.HrZM^ . 
 
 
^ 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/elementarylogicfOOIighrich 
 
ELEMENTARY LOOIO 
 
 UNIVERSITY AND CERTIFICATE 
 STUDENTS. 
 
 (An Enlarged and Revised Edition of " Logic and Education.'^ ) 
 
 AN ELEMENTARY TEXT-BOOK OF 
 DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE LOGIC. 
 
 KEY. JOHN LIGHTFOOT, M.A., D.So. 
 
 ( Vicar of Cross Stone.) 
 
 AUIHOB OF " STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY," " TEXT-BOOK OF THE XHIUTY-NINE 
 ARTICLES," ETC. 
 
 ^ OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF 
 
 IFORfiJ 
 
 Rauph. Holland & Co 
 Temple Chambers. E.G. 
 
 1905. 
 [all bights reserved.] 
 

 ^WHTC 
 
 FiEST Edition, November, 1899. 
 
 New and Enlaeged Edition, May, 1902. 
 
 Repbinted, July, 1902. 
 
 Reprinted, September, 1904, 
 
 Reprinted, October, 1905. 
 

 ^ PREFACE. -5^ 
 
 This book is intended for students commencing the study 
 of Logic. It is an elementary exposition of the subject on 
 traditional lines. Modern logicians have added many retine- 
 ments to the analysis which has been generally received smce 
 the days of Aristotle. But the more subtle questions of 
 criticism can only be appreciated intelligently after the 
 elements of the subject have been mastered. A brief account 
 of the more important reforms in logical doctrine is given in 
 the Appendix now added. The treatment will be found 
 sufficiently full for the preliminary examinations at the 
 Universities, and for the purposes of students preparing for 
 any of the various examinations for a Teacher's Certificate. 
 In the present edition the exposition of Inductive Logic has 
 6een considerably extended, and will now be found ample for 
 all elementary purposes. 
 
 J. LIGHTFOOT. 
 Cross Stone Vicarage. 
 
 189155 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTE. 
 
 students making their first acquaintance with the subject are 
 advised to adopt the following plan on their first reading of the book :— 
 
 Omit Chapter L Read Chapter II., omitting the section "Divisions 
 of the Subject." Omit Chapter III. Chapter IV. should be thoroughly 
 mastered. Read Chapter V., omitting the " Predicables." Omit 
 Chapter VI. Chapter VII. is very important, and the exercises on 
 page 50 should be carefully worked. Read Chapter VIII., but " Obver- 
 sion" and "Contraposition" maybe omitted on first reading. Chap- 
 ters IX. and X. are very important. Chapters XI. and XII. may be 
 neglected on first reading. Chapter XIII. is important (to bottom of 
 page 84). Chapter XTV. is easy and interesting. Pay special attention 
 to the "petitio principii" and "ignoratio elenchi" (pages 92-94). 
 Chapter XV. to end of book is very important. The Appendix may 
 be omitted on first reading. 
 
 On second reading no part of the book should be neglected. Notice 
 that the exercises contain only few questions involving mere repro- 
 duction of the text. It has been assumed that students can and will 
 construct such questions for themselves. 
 
OF THE 
 
 IVERSITY 
 
 V OF 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGB. 
 
 Chapter I. — The Eelation of Logic to other 
 
 Branches of Philosophy . . 7 
 Chapter II. — Definition of Logic and Divisions of the 
 
 Subject 12 
 
 Chapter III. — The Axioms of Logic .... 19 
 Chapter IV. — Terms : Their Definition and Classifica- 
 tion 22 
 
 Chapter V. — The Denotation and Connotation of 
 
 Terms 27 
 
 Chapter VI. — Definition and Division of Terms . . 34 
 
 Chapter VII. — Propositions 41 
 
 Chapter VIII. — Immediate Inference .... 51 
 
 Chapter IX. — Mediate Inference — The Syllogism . 61 
 
 Chapter X. — The Figures of the Syllogism . . 69 
 
 Chapter XI. — The Keduction of Syllogisms . . 74 
 
 Chapter XII. — Irregular and Compound Syllogisms . 79 
 
 Chapter XIII. — Conditional Syllogisms .... 82 
 
 Chapter XIV. — Fallacies of Deduction .... 89 
 
 Chapter XV. — Inductive Logic 97 
 
 Chapter XVI. — The Preliminaries to Induction . . 101 
 Chapter. XVIL— The Inductive Canons . . . .104 
 
 Chapter XVIII. — Arguments Similar to Induction . • 114 
 
 Appendix .....••••• 119 
 
 Index 124 
 
CHAPTEB I. 
 
 The Relation of Logic to other 
 Branches of Philosophy. 
 
 Logic is usually considered the proper introduction to the 
 study of Philosophy. It is well, therefore, to get a preliminary 
 view of the subjects which are included under the general 
 term " Philosophy." 
 
 There are certain questions which must always be of great 
 importance to those whose profession it is to train the minds of 
 children. For instance, the question "What am J?" is 
 obviously as important as the question " What is the sun ? " 
 Now, there are many similar questions to " What am I ? " 
 that will suggest themselves as of great importance in this 
 respect ; e.g. : — 
 
 How did I become what I am ? What are the fixed 
 rules, or laws, which govern the development of mind in 
 man? To what laws must all my conscious thinking 
 conform, so that error and self-contradiction may be 
 avoided ? 
 
 Philosophy is the name given to that branch of study 
 which attempts to give an answer to these and similar 
 questions. 
 
 A course in Philosophy is usually divided into three 
 sections : — Logic, psychology, metaphysics ; and the object of 
 
8 THE DIVISIONS OF PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 these three departments may be thus briefly stated : — 
 
 1. Logic. — Here we investigate the laws to which all 
 our " thinking " must conform, in order that we may avoid 
 error and self-contradiction in our thinking process. 
 
 2. Psychology. — Here is considered our power of think- 
 ing, its growth, and the laws by which "mind" in the 
 individual is governed. 
 
 3. Metaphysics. — Under this name we discuss a number 
 of very difficult and speculative questions about the 
 ultimate grounds of our beliefs and opinions. 
 
 This very brief statement must, for the sake of clearness, 
 be considered more in detail. 
 
 Philosophy, we have said, exists in three forms, and first 
 we have : — 
 
 I. PHILOSOPHY IN THE FORM OF LOGIC. 
 
 Knowledge in its simplest form and from our earliest 
 days, comes to us through sensation. But this elementary 
 knowledge is from the first extended by reflection {i.e., by 
 thinking) and by reasoning. The earliest efforts of a teacher 
 are devoted to making the scholar reason correctly. And 
 this effort is continued throughout the pupil's school-hfe. 
 Evidently, then, it is of first importance that all who teach 
 should themselves clearly recognise the laws to which 
 " correct reasoning " must conform. 
 
 Putting the matter in its briefest form, we may say that 
 " correct reasoning " must have two qualities, viz, :— 
 
 (a) Self-consistency ; 
 
 (b) Consistency with known facts. 
 
 If our "reasoning" is wanting in either of these qualities, 
 ib is incorrect, or fallacious. 
 
 In our efforts, then, to extend and to improve our know- 
 ledge. Logic comes to our aid by showing how fallacies of 
 
THE DIVISIONS OP PHILOSOPHY. 9 
 
 thought and fallacies of expression may be avoided. Logic 
 is thus : — 
 
 A systematised body of tests and rules, by the aid 
 of which we may determine whether 
 
 (a) Our thinking is correct thinking (i.e., in accordance 
 
 with the laws of thought) ; and 
 (6) Whether our thinking is in agreement with factSf 
 and with the known laws of nature. 
 
 Logic and Rhetoric both aim at the formation of conclusions. 
 
 The Logician seeks to convince that the conclusion must be ; 
 
 The Rhetorician seeks to persuade that the conclusion ought to be. 
 
 II. PHILOSOPHY IN THE FORM OF PSYCHOLOGY. 
 
 The simplest reflection suggests to us that all our knowing, 
 reasoning and believing presupposes that we have a " mind " 
 which knows, reasons and believes. What the " mind " really 
 is we do not know. But we do know how the mind manifests 
 itself. If we do not know the mind itself, we know its 
 phenomena. Sensation, knowledge, memory, imagination, 
 reasoning, all these are phenomena of the mind. All these, 
 too, have their laws of growth a«d development, and Psycho- 
 logy is the orderly investigation of the phenomena of mind and 
 the laws by which they are governed. 
 
 Hereafter it will be seen that all man's conscious thinking 
 manifests itself in mental judgments. Logic investigates the laws 
 which these judgments, when formed, must obey. Thus we see the 
 relation between Logic and Psychology. Psychology investigates the 
 process by which the mind forms judgments. Logic studies the 
 result, i.e., the judgments when formed. 
 
 III. PHILOSOPHY IN THE FORM OF METAPHYSICS. 
 
 We have remarked that we do not know what '* mind " 
 really is. But all the same, men have felt themselves bound 
 to hold some theory about it. So, too, we do not know 
 precisely what " matter" really is, but chemists and others have 
 
10 ETHICS, OR MORAIi PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 a theory abont it. So too in every department of human study 
 
 there are certain things which have to be taken for granted ; 
 
 things which cannot be proved, but which we are compelled 
 
 to assume. Now, Philosophy in the form of Metaphysics 
 
 attempts to give some account of these subjects. It attempts 
 
 to explain the ultimate nature of mind and matter, and to give 
 
 a reasoned account of those truths which ordinary science 
 
 takes for granted. 
 
 The word "Metaphysio" suggests the subjects with which its 
 study is concerned. The word means that which is " after," or 
 beyond physical or ordinary scientific investigation. 
 
 It only remains in this general sketch of the province of 
 Philosophy that we should see precisely the place of Moral 
 Philosophy, or Ethics. Ethical study is the considera- 
 tion of a certain definite set of facts and opinions 
 which regulate the behaviour of men as individuals, and as 
 members of the community. It is because of the great 
 practical importance of these that they are reserved for 
 special and separate treatment. In Ethics, or Moral Philo- 
 sophy, we learn how the knowledge of moral distinctions 
 (i.e., of right and wrong) are obtained, and we investi- 
 gate the laws which govern the moral life. But it must be 
 observed that when we are studying the growth of the know- 
 ledge of moral distinctions we are really engaged in the study 
 of Ethical Psychology. So, too, when we further consider 
 questions like the ultimate nature and destiny of the soul, and 
 its relation to the Supreme Being, we are then in the province 
 of Ethical Metaphysics. 
 
 Having now got a general view of the whole province of 
 Philosophy, the student will appreciate the reason why Logic 
 is always prescribed as the proper introduction to this depart- 
 ment of study ; and, further, it will be clear that no course of 
 study in the theory and practice of education can be considered 
 at all complete which has not embraced the treatment of 
 
EXERCISES. 11 
 
 Elementary Logic. At the Universities this subject always 
 finds a place in the general schemes of instruction, and the 
 tendency is to make it a compulsory one for all degree 
 examinations. The student who has mastered the treatment 
 in this work will be sufficiently well prepared for the pre- 
 liminary and intermediate examinations at the Universities, 
 as well as for the questions set by the Board of Education in 
 its certificate examinations. 
 
 EXERCISES ON CHAPTER I. 
 
 •2. Should Logic precede Psychology as a subject of study ? Give 
 reasons for your answer. 
 
 2. State briefly the fundamental relation in which Logic standi 
 to Psychology and Metaphysics, 
 
CHAPTEE II. 
 
 Definition of Logic and Divisions of 
 the Subject. 
 
 LoQio is usually defined as " The Science of Reasoning or 
 Inference." This definition, though suf&cient for general 
 purposes, is not sufficiently precise. The object of Logic is to 
 unfold to us the ideal, or perfect conditions to which aU our 
 thinking must conform in order to be correct thinking. Its 
 object is to show us how we must arrange the matter about 
 which we think, in order that our thought shall be coherent 
 and non- contradictory. A better definition, therefore, will 
 be:— 
 
 Logic is the science of the laws which regulate valid 
 thought. 
 
 It is of the utmost importance to fix clearly the meaning attached 
 to each word in this definition. 
 
 (a) A Science is a systematised body of knowledge about some 
 
 particular subject-matter. 
 Q>) A Law is a statement of a general truth, i.e., a truth which 
 
 holds good generally in human experience, 
 (c) The word "Thought" is used both for the process of 
 
 thinking, and for the product of thinking. 
 N.B.— Knowledge of isolated facts is not Science ; nor ia a truth 
 which holds good only in certain instances a " Law." 
 
 In Logic we consider every simple complete thought as an 
 assertion or a denial. 
 
DEFINITION OF IiOOIC. 18 
 
 Every assertion or denial we call a ** judgment." 
 
 Every judgment when expressed in words we call a 
 « proposition." 
 
 Every assertion or denial which it is possible to make is of 
 such a character that when it is made certain other assertions 
 or denials follow from it as a necessary consequence. These 
 latter are called " inferences." 
 
 An inference is thus a judgment which follows as a neces- 
 sary consequence from some previous assertion, and one 
 which the mind is obliged to make on pain of self-contradiction. 
 If I assert the general fact that " All men are mortal," I am 
 obliged, on pain of self-contradiction, to infer that this or that 
 particular man is mortal. 
 
 A child has had its attention called to the fact that a piece 
 of cork thrown into the water always floats, and is also taught 
 how to recognise a piece of cork. The child is now on any 
 occasion able to make two assertions : — 
 (a) Cork always floats ; 
 (6) This is a piece of cork ; • 
 and from these two assertions, the further one that we call an 
 " inference " follows, and must follow, vi^;., this piece of cork 
 thrown into the water wiU float. 
 
 From our earliest days, our conscious life is largely occupied 
 in drawing inferences. This will appear if we reflect how in 
 teaching and in ordinary conversation we are constantly using 
 such words as therefore, for, because, since, etc. Every 
 such word marks the drawing of some inference. Education 
 at school, and experience in after life is really little else than 
 the development of the inferential connections between pro- 
 positions. 
 
 Now this work of drawing inferences has certain definite 
 rules and laws which must be observed. And it is by these 
 laws that all our inferences may be tested. If the laws have 
 been broken then the inference drawn is an invahd one. An 
 
14 LOGIC, A SCIBNCE OR ABT. 
 
 invalid inference we call a fallacy. No one knows better than a 
 teacher how prone children are to draw wrong inferences. And 
 indeed aU through life men are liable to draw inferences which 
 are fallacious, the main object of Logic being to show how these 
 wrong conclusions may be avoided. It does this by educating 
 man's power of distinguishing the consistent and the conclusive 
 from that which is inconsistent and inconclusive. 
 — The principles of Logic find their application in every walk 
 of life, and in every branch of science. This is recognised by 
 the names given to the various sciences. Thus in the name 
 *' Geology " the last four letters are only another form of 
 the word " logic," and the term " geology " means " Logic 
 applied to explain the crust of the earth." So, too, 
 theology means "Logic applied to explain Divine matters," 
 and so on. Since then the rules of Logic find their application 
 in the processes of every special science, Logic has been very 
 properly called the Science of Sciences. 
 
 Some writers have considered it needful to discuss at great length 
 whether Logic should be called a Science or an Art. As a matter of 
 fact it may be considered as either or both. Science is sound know- 
 ledge, an Art is the instrument by which science works. In studying 
 a science we are gathering knowledge, in learning an art we are pre- 
 paring to do something. 
 
 Logic is a Science in so far as it unfolds the conditions of 
 valid thought. 
 
 Logic is an Art in so far as it devises rules for enabling men 
 to apply their thought to things consistently and coherently. 
 
 Of course it is not implied that a man is unable to think or 
 reason correctly unless he has learnt Logic. Plenty of people 
 speak correct English who have never learnt the rules of 
 Grammar. From our earliest childhood we have been 
 accustomed to draw conclusions, and no doubt we have 
 generally obeyed the laws of Logic in doing so, without being 
 in the least aware what those laws were. Li such cases we 
 were thinking logically without being conscious of the logical 
 
DIVISIONS OF LOGIC AND PSYCHOLOGY. 
 
 il5 
 
 principles which our thinking exemplified. On the other hand, 
 a course of logical study must bring into prominence the laws 
 which constitute valid, consistent thought. The student who 
 has patiently worked through a course of Logic, is much more 
 likely hereafter to think consistently and coherently than one 
 who is ignorant of Logic. And this will be found to be 
 especially true in those cases where, owing to the complexity 
 of thought and the ambiguity of language, there is serious 
 danger of fallacy even to the cleverest intellects. 
 DIVISIONS OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 There are two main divisions of Logic, viz. : — 
 (a) DeductiYe and (6) Inductive Logic. 
 We must get a preliminary view of the scope of these : — 
 
 (a) Deductive Logic (sometimes called pure or Formal 
 Logic). This division of the subject is the orderly, scientific 
 unfolding of those forms and conditions to which our " think- 
 ing " must conform in order to be valid thinking. 
 
 Our " thinking " manifests itself in what for convenience 
 may be called three stages, not that as a matter of fact they 
 are separate and distinct. Each of these ideal stages has its 
 peculiar product or result : — 
 
 STAGE 1. 
 
 PROCESS. 
 
 Formation of ideas of con- 
 cepts of things. 
 STAGE 2. 
 
 Forming judgments about 
 these ideas— i.e., making men- 
 tal assertions or denials about 
 them. 
 STAGE 3. 
 
 Drawing mental inferences Signifying this mental pro- 
 from these judgments. cess by the " Syllogism. 
 
 stage 1, is often described as " simple apprehension," and stands 
 for the action of the mind in being aware of anything, having an idea, 
 
 RESULT. 
 
 Signifying these concepts or 
 ideas by ^* Names." 
 
 Expressing these judgments 
 in •* Propositions." 
 
16 INDUCTIVE LOGIC. 
 
 or concept of it. The psychological analysis of " simple apprehen- 
 sion," however, shows it to be a complex and not a simple process. 
 
 N.B.— Simple apprehension, Judgment and reasoning (inference) 
 are the psychological processes. Names (terms), propositionB and 
 syllogisms are the corresponding results which are the subject 
 matter of Logic. 
 
 Consequently Deductive Logic has three sub-divisions 
 answering to these three stages. 
 The laws of thought : — 
 
 1. Concerning our Concepts of things ; 
 
 2. Concerning our Judgment of things ; 
 
 3. Concerning oiur Reasoning about things. 
 
 And since our thinldng is liable to error, we shall require to 
 supplement the above by an account of the Fallacies to which 
 we are liable if the laws of pure logic are violated. 
 
 (b) Inductive Logic (sometimes called Applied or Mixed 
 Logic). The scope of this second main division is best seen 
 from an account of its sub-divisions. 
 
 1. Definition. — In all our thinking about nature we 
 are obliged to use language. But language, at the best, is 
 only an imperfect instrument for expressing all that is in 
 the thinker's mind. The Logical doctrine of definition 
 aims at improving the relations of language to thought, 
 and especially to man's thought about things. 
 
 2. Inductive and Analogical Proof. — This section 
 first investigates the meaning and value of the central 
 presupposition of all science, viz : " The uniformity of 
 nature." It reveals the fact that nature is not a chaos, but 
 an orderly coherent system of cause and effect. Next it 
 deals with the obvious fact that untrained minds are liable 
 to confuse mere accidental coincidence with true conse- 
 quence and real scientific connection. To guard against 
 this, Logic provides certain canons or rules, and by these 
 unfolds the standard of scientific proof. It thus enables 
 men to distinguish between evidence which is properly 
 
LOGIC AND GBAMMAR. 17 
 
 {a) Inductive and therefore reliable, and evidence which is 
 only (b) Analogical or probable. This section is thus 
 really the logic of all the physical sciences. 
 
 3. Historical Proof. — If the language of nature is 
 liable to be misunderstood, much more so is the spoken 
 and written language of men. Therefore Logic has certain 
 rules to lay down respecting human testimony which form 
 the criteria of Historical Proof. 
 These divisions and sub-divisions of the whole domain of 
 Logic may be shown thus : — 
 
 Logic. 
 (The Science of the laws which regulate valid thought.) 
 
 Deductive Logic. Inductive Logic. 
 
 I 
 
 Thought as Thought as Thought as Definition Testimony 
 Concept. Judgment. Inference. and 
 
 Authority. 
 Proof : 
 (a) Inductive. 
 (6) Analogical. 
 
 Note that Logic is concerned primarily with Thought, 
 Grammar with Language. Logic considers Language only as 
 the instrument of Thought. The " Parts of Speech " which 
 are the main feature in the grammatical analysis of language 
 are not recognised by Logic. Only those words which can 
 properly express a concept are within its range. Words that 
 can express a concept are grouped together as Terms, and it is 
 quite immaterial whether, in grammatical language, they are 
 nouns, pronouns, adjectives, or verbs. In Grammar and Logic 
 the simplest expression of a complete thought is a Simple 
 Sentence. But the logical analysis of a sentence differs from 
 the grammatical. The predicate of a logical sentence is 
 always the complete assertion made of the subject. 
 
18 EXEBCISBB. 
 
 EXEECISES ON CHAPTEE II. 
 
 1. Define " Science " and " Art." Discuss the question whether 
 Logic is a Science or an Art. 
 
 2. What is Logic ? What are the chief uses of its study ? Why 
 should teachers especially make a study of it ? 
 
 3. Many people think quite correctly who have never studied 
 Logic ; why, then, waste time in studying it ? 
 
 4. Logic has been defined as *' the science of the laws of thought," 
 In this definition what is meant by the terms " Science,'' " Law," 
 and " Thought " ? 
 
 6. Discuss the relation of Logic to Grammar and Rhetoric. 
 
 6. What practical valv,e may be attributed to Logic (a) in the 
 detection of error, (b) in tlie discovery of truth ? 
 
 7. Explain the logical words term, proposition and syllogism, 
 and give the psychological words for the corresponding mental act 
 of each. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 The Axioms of Logic. 
 
 Logic has thus far been shown to be the practical science 
 which unfolds to us the ideal of self-consistent thought. In its 
 later sections it supplies the student with certain canons or 
 rules for applying our thought to things. Now, there are 
 certain principles or axioms which form the essence of self- 
 consistency. "When these are drawn out they will appear to 
 the student as self-evident truths. All the same they require 
 consideration, and after we have examined them they must be 
 regarded as axioms. 
 
 Speaking quite generally we may say that these several 
 axioms imply one general truth, viz. : — 
 
 " Thought which is evidently self -contradictory is im- 
 possible.*' 
 
 Every description of fallacy is really a thought that is self- 
 contradictory. But we may so express ourselves that the 
 contradiction is not obvious to those to whom we are speaking, 
 nor even to ourselves. Thus, in such an argument as the 
 following : — 
 
 '* He who is most hungry eats most ; 
 He who eats least is most hungry : 
 Therefore, he who eats least eats most," 
 we feel there is contradiction somewhere, but it would require 
 some consideration to point out where the contradiction 
 really lay. 
 
 It might be better to say that a fallacy is really the absence of 
 thought, i.e., of logical thought ; the absence usually being concealed 
 under a veil of words. 
 
20 THE LAWS OF THOUGHT. 
 
 The general truth stated above — viz, " thought which is 
 evidently self- contradictory is impossible" — ^is expressed by 
 logicians in three different ways. These three different forms 
 are the three fundamental laws of which every valid thought 
 is the exemplification. In other words, they are the essence 
 of " self-consistent thought." 
 
 The three laws are known as : — 
 
 1. The Law of Identity. 
 
 2. The Law of Non-contradiction. 
 
 3. The Law of the Excluded Middle. 
 
 1. The Law of Identity. — This principle asserts that 
 if any proposition is true, then any other proposition which 
 is either {a) identical with it, or (6) logically included in it^ 
 must also be true. 
 
 A is {i.e., must be) A. 
 
 Whatever is, is. 
 
 Everything is what it is. 
 
 If every A is B, then this A is B. 
 
 2. The Law of Non-contradiction. — This principle 
 asserts the necessary logical disagreement of assertions 
 with their contradictory denials. In other words, two 
 contradictory assertions cannot both be true. 
 
 A is not non-A. 
 
 Nothing can both be and not be. 
 The same attribute cannot be at the same time affirmed 
 and denied of the same subject. 
 
 3. The Law of the Excluded Middle. — This principle 
 asserts that of two downright contradictory statements, 
 either the one or the other must be true ; no third or inter- 
 mediate assertion is possible. 
 
 A either is or is not B. 
 Every assertion must be true or not true. 
 Besides these three generally accepted principles, there is 
 another one which is less universally adopted. It is known as 
 
EXBRCISES. 31 
 
 The Law of Sufficient Eeason, and the law may be expressed 
 
 thus : — Nothing happens without a reason why it should he so, 
 rather than otherwise. For instance: — If two forces are in 
 exact equilibrium, there is no reason why the body on which 
 they act should move in the direction of either force. If a body 
 is acted on by two unequal forces in exactly opposite directions, 
 it will move in the direction of the greater force. If the 
 "reason why" is granted you must allow the consequence. 
 
 The student will notice that these laws are self-evident 
 truths, they cannot be proved by reference to any thing simpler. 
 They neither require proof nor are' capable of it. 
 
 Until the student has made some progress in the study of 
 Logic, he is liable to confuse opposite terms with contradictory 
 ones. Thus in considering the law of the excluded middle, he 
 might fancy it possible to make intermediate assertions which 
 the law says are impossible. Thus, if we say " every substance 
 is either hard or not hard," the reply might be made that some 
 substances are neither hard nor soft, but of medium quality. 
 But Logic has nothing to do with degrees of hardness. It 
 assumes that the word " hard " has a definite meaning, and all 
 things which do not exactly agree with this meaning are " not 
 hard." Even concerning things of which "hardness " could not 
 properly be predicted, e.g., heat, colour, taste, etc., it is still 
 possible to say " heat is either hard or not hard." 
 
 EXERCISES ON CHAPTER III. 
 
 i. " Things luhich are equal to the same thing are equal to each 
 ether.'* Show that this is only another form of the Law of Identity. 
 
 2. What are the laws of thought ? State clearly what you 
 understand by a law of tJwught. 
 
 3. Euclid in comparing things shows that they are either greater, 
 equal to, or less than each other. How would these three alternatives 
 be expressed in Logic t 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Terms : their Definition and 
 Classification. 
 
 The simplest and most elementary manifestation of thought 
 is an assertion or denial. Every assertion or denial that we 
 can make is called in Logic a judgment. Now in every 
 assertion or denial we affirm or deny something of something 
 else. 
 
 When the judgment is expressed in words we call it a 
 proposition. Every proposition must therefore contain two 
 names : — 
 
 (a) The name of the thing about which the assertion is 
 made ; (6) The assertion itself, e.g., — 
 
 (a) Gold (b) is a metal. 
 These two names are called the " terms " of the proposition^ 
 because they are the boundaries (terminals) of the proposition. 
 Definition of a Term. — A Term is a word or a combina- 
 tion of words, which can properly stand as the subject or 
 predicate of a proposition. 
 
 Every proposition must of course have a subject and a predicate 
 either expressed or implied. Even in an exclamation such as "Fire 1 " 
 the word is the predicate of a proposition the subject of which is 
 implied, thus: — " This house (etc.) is on fire." 
 
 From the definition given it follows that all words may 
 be divided into two classes : — 
 
 {a) Those which can be used as Terms 
 (6) Those which cannot. 
 
CLASSIFICATION OP TERMS. 23 
 
 Words belonging to the former class are called categorematic. 
 
 Those belonging to the latter class are called syncategorematic. 
 A categorematic word is one which can by itself be used 
 as a term, i.e., which can stand alone as the subject op 
 predicate of a proposition. (In grammar such words are 
 distinguished as nouns, pronouns, adjective, participles, 
 but in Logic they form one class.) 
 
 A syncategorematic word is one which cannot by itself 
 be used as a term, but only in combination with one op 
 more other words. (Adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions 
 and interjections.) 
 
 The student must carefully avoid speaking of synoategorematio 
 terms. The contradiction is obvious. 
 
 Terms (categorematic words) are classified in five groups as 
 follows : — 
 
 1. The Common term (or, as it is often called, the 
 General term), as contrasted with the Singular (or 
 Proper) ; and the Collective term. 
 
 2. Concrete and Abstract terms. 
 
 3. Positive and Negative terms. 
 
 4. Connotative and Non-connotative terms. 
 
 5. Absolute and Relative terms. 
 
 1. (a) The Common or General Term. — To logicians 
 this is by far the most important of all. It is a term 
 which can be affirmed or denied in the same sense of 
 more things than one : as book, dog, man. 
 
 (6) The Singular or Proper Term is one which can 
 be affirmed, in the same sense, of only one single thing. 
 N.B. — A common term may of course be transformed 
 into a singular term by means of some individualising 
 prefix. Thus *' man " is a common term, but " the first 
 man " is a singular term. 
 
24 CliASSIFICATION OF TERMS. 
 
 (c) The Collective Term is one which can be afi&rmed 
 or denied of two or more things taken together, but which 
 cannot, hke a common term, be affirmed or denied of each 
 one of these when taken separately : as armyj flock, 
 library, etc. 
 
 Notice that in words like " library " the sense in which the word 
 is being used must be taken into account. Library, a collection of 
 books, is a collective term. Library {i.e., any library) is a common term. 
 
 2. (a) A Concrete Term is the name of an object; it 
 stands for some individual thing, or a collection of indivi- 
 dual things. 
 
 (6) An Abstract Term represents an attribute or attri- 
 butes, considered apart from the individual object of 
 which it may be the attribute. Thus " man " is concrete, 
 "humanity" is abstract; "living being" is concrete, 
 " life " is abstract ; " generous" is concrete, " generosity " 
 is abstract. 
 
 3. (a) A Positive Term implies the presence of some 
 attribute or group of attributes. 
 
 (fc) A Negative Term implies the absence of the attri- 
 butes included in the corresponding positive term. Thus 
 metallic, compound, light, are examples of positive terms; 
 of which the corresponding negative terms are non- 
 metallic, element, darkness. 
 
 4. {a) A Connotative Term is one which represents an 
 individual thing, or group of individual things, together 
 with one or more of their attributes. " Animal " is a 
 connotative term, as it implies the attribute "animality"; 
 so also is " mountain," which implies the attributes 
 " height," etc. 
 
 (b) A Non-Connotative Term signifies an individual 
 thing only, and does not imply any attribute. Thus : 
 Whiteness, London, are examples of non-connotative 
 terms. 
 
CLASSIFICATION OF TERMS. 25 
 
 The student must carefully consider this distinction of terms. 
 Think, for example, why " mountain " is called a connotative term, 
 but Snowdon, the name of a particular mountain is not. Now the 
 name " Snowdon " might suggest to anyone with sufficient geo- 
 graphical knowledge, all the attributes implied in the term 
 " mountain." But a word is not connotative because it may suggest 
 facts or attributes which are otherwise known, but only when it 
 actually implies them. Many logicians have overlooked this, and 
 have considered proper names connotative. In answering a question 
 in an examination it would be wise to give your reason for consider- 
 ing a proper name as " non-connotative." 
 
 5. (a) An Absolute Term is a name which is complete in 
 itself, i.e., which in its meaning implies no reference to 
 anything else ; as gas, sound, tree, etc. 
 
 (6) A Relativb Term is a name which not only denotes 
 some object, but also implies in its signification the 
 existence of some other object called the correlative. 
 Thus when we use the term friend or father for some man, 
 we imply the existence of some other person or persons to 
 which the man stands in the relation of friendship or 
 fatherhood. 
 
 These definitions of the various Tcinds of terms must he 
 thoroughly understood, and the student must be well exercised 
 in the classification of terms. When the appended examples 
 are attempted it will be foimd a more difficult task than might 
 be supposed. The main difficulty will be found in deciding 
 whether an abstract term is general or singular. Some logicians 
 argue that all abstract names are singular. Thus the adjective 
 " red " is the name of red objects, but it implies the possession 
 by them of the quality " redness," and this quality has one 
 single meaning. It is much simpler, however, to consider 
 some abstracts general on the ground that they are names of 
 attributes of which there are various kinds or subdivisions; e.g., 
 the word colour which is a name common to whiteness, red- 
 ness, ^etc, or the term whiteness in respect of the various 
 shades of whiteness to which it is applied in common. But 
 
26 EXERCISES. 
 
 just because the point is a disputed one, you should give your 
 reason for classifying abstract terms as general or singular. 
 
 A further difficulty arises in dealing with terms that are 
 equivocal, i.e., capable of being used in several senses. Indeed, 
 some writers make a further classification of terms, as Univocai* 
 (terms which can only suggest one meaning) and Equivocal 
 or Ambiguous (terms which may have two or more meanings). 
 An equivocal term is really two or more terms with identical 
 spelling, and should be so treated. Thus the term "force " is 
 .equivocal, as it might mean an army or that which causes 
 motion, etc., and each meaning demands a distinct classifica- 
 tion of the word. It is better, therefore, to say at once if a 
 term is equivocal or univocal, and then proceed. 
 
 EXEKCISES ON CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 J. Discuss the grammatical parts of speech from a logical point 
 of view. 
 
 2. May terms he classified as categorematic and syncategore- 
 matic ? Give reasons for your answer, 
 
 3. Describe a ''collective term.'' Illustrate the difficulty of 
 distinguishing these from general or abstract tei-ms. 
 
 4. Classify the following terms : donkey, reagent, red, redness ^ 
 London, sugar. Mikado of Japan, intensity, also, vexation, blind, 
 emotion, darkness, foot, Westminster Abbey, uncle. 
 
 5. Point out the ambiguity, if any, of tlie following terms : vice^ 
 hydrogen, peer, paper, sense, minister, tea-cup, interest. 
 
 6. Distinguish between the meaning of the terms abstract a7id 
 concrete, and show the applicability of these terms (1) to parts of 
 speech, and (2) to arithmetic. Say what is the use of the distinction. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Denotation and Connotation 
 of Terms. 
 
 If the question were asked "What is an animal?" we can 
 imagine two forms of answer being given : (a) an exact 
 definition of the term; (6) an enumeration of the various 
 classes of animals. The first answer might be expressed 
 thus: — "An animal is a sentient, organised being." This 
 definition tells us what must be the attributes of anything 
 in the universe to which the name " animal " can be rightly 
 applied. Such a definition is said to mark the connotation of 
 the term. On the other hand the latter definition which 
 proceeds to enumerate all the different classes of animals is said 
 to mark the denotation of the term. 
 
 A Term, therefore, in Logic is considered to discharge a 
 double function: — 
 
 1. Connoting the attributes of .things. 
 
 2. Denoting individual things. 
 
 Notice that a term is a word which signifies a mental idea 
 or concept. But in Logic we do not speak of the connotation 
 or denotation of a concept. When speaking of concepts we 
 use the words intension and extension.* 
 
 The intension of a concept corresponds to the connota- 
 tion of the term signifying the concept. 
 
 The extension of a concept corresponds to the denotation 
 of its related term. 
 
 The connotation of a term (or the intension of its corre- 
 sponding concept) signifies the attributes implied in the 
 meaning of the term. 
 
 * Some writers, however, speak of the intension and extension of terms, 
 and even the denotation and connotation of concepts. 
 
88 RELATION OP CONKOTATION AND DENOTATION. 
 
 The denotation of a term (or the extension of its corre- 
 sponding concept) signifies the number of individual things 
 to which the term is applicable in the same sense. 
 
 The student is invited to reflect upon these definitions. It will 
 then be seen that an important logical truth is involved. Every 
 common term like man, bird, etc., stands for a number of individual 
 things (different individual men or birds), and a quantity of 
 attributes (rational being, feathered biped, etc.) Thought as 
 expressed by "terms" is thus a kind of quantity, and all our 
 affirmations and assertions about terms are really a comparison of 
 quantities. If I say "men are animals," I mean that "men "are a 
 quantity of things contained in a greater quantity of things called 
 "animals." 
 
 Now the two particular kinds of quantity we are consider- 
 ing (connotation and denotation) have a mutual relation. For 
 a moment's reflection will show that the wider or greater the 
 denotation of a term becomes, the narrower or smaller must be 
 its connotation. Thus compare the two terms "animal" and 
 "man." The term animal embraces far more individual 
 things under it than the term man, therefore its denotation is 
 greater. But the term man implies a larger number of 
 attributes than the term animal. For everything that you can 
 say of animal you must say of man, but you also say of man 
 certain things which you cannot say of all animals. Therefore 
 the connotation of the term man is greater than that of the 
 term animal. 
 
 As a fairly correct general rule it may be said that as 
 
 the denotation of a term is increased, the connotation is 
 
 diminished, and vice versa. 
 
 In other words the greater the number of individual things 
 included under a common term, the fewer will be the number 
 of attributes which can be predicated of the whole of them. 
 
 This is expressed by the Logical rule that the connotation 
 
 and denotation of a term (or the intensive and extensive 
 
 quantity of a concept) are in inverse ratio. The greater 
 
THE PRBDICABLES. 29 
 
 the denotation, applicability or extent of a term — the less 
 must be its connotation or comprehcnsiYe quantity. The 
 maximum of the one must in all cases be the minimum of 
 the other, and vice versa.* 
 
 Now observe when two common terms are so related 
 that the whole connotation of the one is included within the 
 greater connotation of the other — the term which has the 
 greater connotation is called the " Species," and the one which 
 has the smaller, or included connotation, is called the '< Genus." 
 Thus taking the two related terms " man " and " animal," the 
 term " man " implies all the attributes that the term "animal" 
 implies, as well as some further ones peculiar to itself. 
 " Man " has the larger connotation, therefore " man " is a 
 species of the genus " animal." 
 
 In the proposition " Man is an animal " we assert that 
 " man " the species is included in " animal " the genus. Every 
 affirmative proposition makes some such assertion respecting 
 the subject of the proposition. The following problem, there- 
 fore, arises : " Can the predicates of all propositions he 
 classified in relation to their subjects under certain definite 
 heads ? " Logic attempts this by the Doctrine of the Pre- 
 dicables. 
 
 The predicables, then, are a classification of all the possible 
 relations of the predicate to the subject of a logical pro- 
 position. The following is the usual form of this classification : 
 
 II. Genus 
 2. Species 
 3. Difierentia 
 crtjuiuames are eitner -\ 4. Proprium Y of the subject, 
 (property) 
 5. Accidens 
 
 (accident) 
 
 These five heads of the predicate require consideration. 
 
 * This doctrine of "Connotation and Denotation being in inverse ratio " is' 
 given in accordance with traditional logic. It is open to much criticism^ 
 and is only a "fairly correct general rule." 
 
30 GENUS AND SPECIES. 
 
 1. Genus is a common term, signifying a wider class which 
 is made up of other narrower classes, e.g., animal, triangle. 
 
 2. Species is the name given to the narrower classes, 
 included in a genus, e.^/., Vertebrates, Invertebrates; equilateral 
 triangle, etc. 
 
 Genus and species, then, are relative terms, and must be 
 considered together. A genus would be meaningless apart 
 from two or more species into which it is divided. A species 
 would be equally meaningless apart from the genus in which 
 it is contained. 
 
 The student will notice that the same term may be at the 
 same time a species of the next more general class, and a 
 genus to the less general classes included under it. Thus take 
 the term" triangle." Triangle is a species of the genus "recti- 
 linear figures," whilst at the same time it is a genus of the 
 different kinds of triangles : equilateral, isosceles, etc. 
 
 From this it follows that every term may be both a genus 
 and a species. But the technical language of Logic implies, 
 however, that this is not universally the case. It implies that 
 there is a genus which is not a species of any higher genus ; 
 and that there is a species which is not a genus to any lower 
 species. For Logic speaks of : — 
 
 1. The highest genus ; 
 
 2. Intermediate genera or species ; 
 
 3. The lowest species. 
 
 The highest or most general genus, i.e., which can have 
 none above it, is such a one as " Being." This is called "the 
 summum genus." The lowest relative species, which can have 
 none below it, is the name of any individual thing. This is 
 called " the infima species." 
 
 Any highest genus broken up into its component species, 
 and these component species in turn regarded as genera again 
 broken up into their component species, and the process 
 
^ UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF 
 
 TREE OP PORPHYRY. 
 
 31 
 
 repeated until you cannot proceed further, {i.e., when an infima 
 species is reached) is called a " Predicamental Line." A process 
 such as this is illustrated by the ancient " Tree of Porphyry " : 
 
 Substance 
 (a summum genus). 
 
 Jorporeal. 
 
 1 
 
 
 Incorporeal. 
 
 
 Body. 
 
 
 Animate. 
 
 1 
 
 
 Inanimate. 
 
 
 Living Being. 
 
 
 Sensible. 
 
 1 
 
 
 Insensible. 
 
 
 Animal. 
 
 1 
 
 
 Rational. 
 
 1 
 
 
 Irrational, 
 
 
 Man. 
 
 
 Socrates. 
 
 Plato, and other individual men. 
 
 Here Substance is the Summum Genus and Man is the Infima 
 Species (i.e., man cannot be divided into any smaller species, but only 
 into individual men). 
 
 Each of the intermediate genera down the middle line (Body, Living 
 Being, Animal), is called a subaltern genus or species, and the nearest 
 genus to every term of which that term is itself a species, is called the 
 proximuni genus. 
 
32 DIFFERENTIA. 
 
 3. Differentia. — It has already being seen that a species has 
 a larger connotation than its corresponding genus {i.e., the 
 species implies more attributes). Now take any term used as 
 a species and compare it with its next, or proximate, genus. 
 The excess of the connotation of the species over the conno- 
 tation of the genus is called the " Differentia " of the specieSr 
 Thus:— 
 
 Genus+Differentia= Species. 
 
 Referring to the Tree of Porphyry, "Living being" is a 
 
 species of the genus "body." " Animate " is the attribute 
 
 which forms the differentia of the species " living body," 
 
 thus : — 
 
 Body + Animate = Living body 
 (genus) (differentia) (species). 
 
 4. Property (Proprium). — By property is meant any 
 attribute which is common to every individual in a given class ^ 
 but which is not necessary for distinguishing that class. This 
 will be clear from the following illustration. Take the term 
 "triangle." A triangle is a figure bounded by three straight 
 lines. " Three-sided " is the differentia of a triangle. But 
 triangles have many other properties, e.g., " three-angled," 
 " all their angles equal to two right angles," etc. 
 
 5. Accident (Accidens). — An accident is an attribute which 
 has no necessary connection with the term to which it belongs. 
 Thus the size of a triangle — i.e., big or little — is an accident. 
 Size does not at all affect what Euclid proves concerning 
 triangles. 
 
 Accidents are usually divided into 
 
 Separable accidents — e.g., how a man is dressed ; 
 Inseparable accidents — e.g., the colour of his hair. 
 
SXEBCISES. 
 
 EXERCISES ON CHAPTER V. 
 
 1. Define differentia^ property, and inseparable accident, giving 
 examples. How far may these distinctions be interchanged. 
 
 2. To which of the predicables would you refer the predicates in 
 the following propositions, and why : — 
 
 (a) All men are animals. 
 
 (b) Mr. Gladstone was a great statesman. 
 
 (c) The three angles of a triangle are together equal to two 
 
 right angles. 
 
 (d) All ducks are web-footed. 
 
 (e) John ruled badly . 
 
 (f) Alkalies by their union with acids form salts. 
 
 3. Explain clearly the connotation and the denotation of a term. 
 What determines the connotation and denotation of terms ? Have all 
 terms a denotation and connotation ? 
 
 4. Arrange the following terms in their order of extension: — 
 Vertebrate, human, substance, child, organism, schoolboy. 
 
 5. Explain the terms intension and extension as applied to terms 
 in Logic, and distinguish gemis and species, illustrating your 
 explanation by the terms cart, eagle and man. 
 
 6. Distinguish between denotation and connotation, and show the 
 importance of the distinction in teaching. 
 
 7. Give the genus, tlie differentia, a proprium and an accident of 
 silver, Darwinian, square, house. 
 
 8. ^^ A generic term denotes a larger number of objects tlmn a 
 specific term ; but it connotes a smaller number of attributes." 
 Explain this statement and illustrate it by examples. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Definition and Division of Terms. 
 
 The definition of a term is the explicit statement of the 
 connotation of the term. 
 
 Since every definition of a term must take the form of a 
 proposition, it would be more convenient to have considered 
 the logical doctrine of definition when we are discussing 
 propositions. But it is usual to consider the subject at this 
 stage of our study. 
 
 In a definition that which is defined is always the subject 
 of a proposition. The predicate must declare with sufficient 
 precision what the subject means. In other words, the 
 predicate must show forth the attributes which separate the 
 subject in question from all other subjects. 
 
 All definitions are propositions, but all propositions are not de- 
 finitions. Only those propositions are definitions in which the 
 predicate so makes clear the attributes of the subject, as to separate 
 it from all other subjects with which it might be confounded. 
 
 The subject and predicate of a definition are, therefore, 
 exactly co-extensive. The difference between them is this : — 
 what was latent — wrapped up, as it were, in the subject — is 
 fully unfolded or analysed in the predicate. Logic asserts that 
 this result is achieved when the predicate of the defining 
 proposition exposes the proximate genus and the differentia of 
 
RULES OF DEFINITION. 36 
 
 a term. For the genus implies all the attributes of the term 
 considered as a species of the genus; whilst the differentia 
 displays those attributes which distinguish the term as a 
 species. In Logic, then, 
 
 The definition of a term = proximate genus + differentia. 
 
 Notice that there are some terms which are incapable of logical 
 definition, e.g., a summum genus, all proper names, etc. The former 
 has no proximate genus, the latter have such a multiplicity of 
 attributes that we can only mention a number of them sufficient for 
 the practical purpose of recognition. This enumeration, however, is 
 " description " not definition. 
 
 The student must not confound logical definition with 
 "*' dictionary definition." In the latter all that is done is to 
 substitute one word for another, assumed to have a similar 
 connotation, on the ground that the new word is more familiar 
 or intelligible than the one for which it is substituted. 
 
 There are certain simple rules which Logic lays down to 
 which propositions must conform to entitle them to be regarded 
 as good logical definitions. 
 
 1. The definition must bring into view the essential, dis- 
 tinguishing attributes (differentia) of what is defined."^ 
 
 2. The definition must be adequate, and applicable 
 exclusively to what is defined. 
 
 3. We must not define by negations. 
 
 i. The definition must be expressed in unambiguous, 
 intelligible language. 
 
 Defiinition is a most important subject. Avoid confusing 
 the definition of names with the definition of things. The 
 definition of a name is the settlement of what the name shall 
 be, by which a thing or a concept shaU be designated. Any 
 man is entitled to determine this as he pleases, so long as he 
 adheres consistently to the name he has connected with the 
 
 * Obviously, to merely name properties or accidents can never be a logical 
 ■definition. 
 
36 LOGICAL Division. 
 
 concept or thing. Sounds or signs on paper, are in themselves 
 indifferent to meaning. Each or any may be used to express 
 any meaning that has been agreed upon by those who use 
 the word. Definition of a thing, is not thus arbitrary. These 
 definitions depend on what is involved in the essential nature 
 of the thing defined. Men are apt to confound definitions oi 
 names with definitions of things, and to confuse both with that 
 full analysis of the attributes implied in our concepts which it 
 is the province of logical definition to bring into light. We are 
 frequently asked to accept definitions of names as if they were 
 the true definitions of things. Because we agree to employ 
 a certain sound to express some meaning, it does not follow 
 that the meaning so expressed corresponds to the essential 
 attributes of the things signified by the sign. 
 
 Logical Division. — Diyision is the analysis of the 
 denotation of a term. 
 
 It is always expressed in the form of a proposition, the 
 term divided being the subject, and the exposition being 
 the predicate. 
 
 There are other familiar kinds of division with which 
 logical division must not be confounded, e.g., 
 
 {a) Partition, which is the act of dividing some physical 
 whole mto its constituent parts, e.g., ship=hull, mast, 
 sails, etc. ; man=head, trunk, limbs, etc. 
 
 (6) Distinction of ambiguous or equivocal terms, e.g.,. 
 Humanity =(1) human nature, or (2) the human race 
 collectively; Vice=(l) a moral fault, or (2) a mechanical 
 tool. 
 
 (c) Enumeration of individuals, e.g., naming aii ihe 
 books in a library. 
 Logical division expounds the denotation of a term not by 
 enumerating individuals. This would in most cases be im- 
 possible. No one could enumerate all the different men 
 
RULES OF LOGICAL DIVISION. 87 
 
 included under the term " man." It proceeds by mentioning 
 only the smaller groups denoted by the term. 
 
 Collective and singular terms cannot be divided into smaller 
 groups, and, therefore, cannot be logically divided. 
 
 A collective term can be transformed into a common term, and 
 so become capable of logical division. Thus "the fourteenth 
 regiment" may be transformed into "soldiers of the fourteenth 
 regiment," and in this form may be divided into officers, privates, etc. 
 
 When we proceed to divide a term into terms expressive 
 of smaller groups, we seek some attribute which may be 
 predicated of certain members of the group, but which cannot 
 be predicated of the rest. This attribute is called the basis of 
 division {fundamentum divisionis). Of course, the same genus 
 may be variously divided by adopting different bases of 
 division. Thus in dividing the genus " triangles " we may 
 adopt the relative length of their sides as our basis, and so 
 divide triangles into equilateral, isosceles, and scalene. Or 
 we might adopt the size of their angles as the basis, and so 
 divide triangles into right-angled, acute-angled, and obtuse- 
 angled. But two or more bases of division must never be 
 confused together in the same division, or we fall into the 
 error called in Logic " Cross division." It would, e.g., be 
 cross division to divide triangles into isosceles, right-angled, 
 and scalene. 
 
 There are certain rules to which a logical division must 
 conform, viz. : — 
 
 1. Each act of division must have one and only one 
 basis of division, or cross division will ensue. 
 
 2. The division must be exhaustive, i.e., the dividing 
 members when taken together must be co-extensive with 
 the divided whole. 
 
 3. If the division is a continued one {i.e., embraces more 
 than one step), each step should, as far as possible, be a 
 
\ CLASSIFICATION. 
 
 proximate one — in other words "proceed step by step. 
 e.g. :— 
 
 Figure. 
 
 Curvilinear. Eectilinear. 
 
 I 
 
 I I I 
 
 Triangle. Quadrilateral. Polygons. 
 
 I 
 
 Equilateral. Isosceles. Scalene.* 
 
 When we turn from the division of our concepts as 
 expressed in terms, and proceed to consider material things the 
 logical doctrine of division becomes a theory of logical scientific 
 CLASSIFICATION. The object of classification is to so arrange 
 the facts with which we may be dealing that we can acquire the 
 greatest command over them, and convey the greatest amount 
 of information about them in a few words. 
 
 Classification is really a branch of Inductive Logic. It is one of 
 the important processes subsidiary to the application of the inductive 
 canons. By its use we obtain a greater command over the knowledge 
 we possess, and are put in the right avenue for obtaining additional 
 information. It provides that our knowledge of things shall be so 
 arranged that the facts may be more easily remembered, and that we 
 may more readily perceive the laws by which they are governed. 
 
 ♦There is a further method of division in which each step is a division into 
 corresponding positive and negative terms, e.g. : — 
 
 Figure. 
 
 Rectilinear. Non-rectilinear. 
 
 _J 
 
 Triangles, Non-triangles, 
 
 etc. 
 This is called division by Dichotomy. It is extremely cumbersome and of small 
 importance. 
 
EXERCISES. 89 
 
 Logic considers all attempts at classification as either natural or 
 artificial. By a natural classification is meant the grouping of facta 
 in accordance with real natural distinctions. Thus an actual scientific 
 knowledge of facts is a pre-supposed requisite for a natural classifica- 
 tion. Different branches of science have different objects in view, 
 and accordingly they often adopt a special basis for classification. 
 The practical farmer divides plants into those which are useful, and 
 those which are weeds. Whilst the botanist adopts the division into 
 monocotyledons and dicotyledons as his basis. The student who h is 
 an elementary knowledge of Geology and Zoology will remember how 
 differently fossils are classified in the two Sciences. 
 
 An artificial classification selects some point of resemblance 
 amongst objects, and one which is easy to identify, and proceeds to 
 classify related objects upon this basis. The Linnaean system of 
 classification in Botany, which takes for its basis the number of 
 stamens and pistils in a flowering plant, is a good illustration of an 
 artificial system. In Zoology, where the primary basis of classification 
 is into vertebrates and invertebrates, we have an example of a natural 
 classification. 
 
 EXERCISES ON CHAPTER VI. 
 
 1. Criticise the following definitions: — 
 (a) Ignorance is a hlind guide. 
 
 (h) The cat is a domestic ayiimal. 
 
 ( c) Enjoyment means pleasure. 
 
 (d) Tranquillity is the absence of unrest. 
 
 fe ) Alcohol is a kind of medicine. 
 
 2. Define the terms gold, coal, legal nuisance, civilization, 
 Cleopatra^ s Needle, bread, anger, Snowdon. 
 
 3. What do you understand by a perfect definition ; and what 
 jyrocesses of thought are employed in arriving at one ? Oive two or 
 three examples which err by being either too wide or too narrow. 
 
 4. What is the difference between (a) a description, (b) a defifMr 
 tion, (c) an explanation ? 
 
 5. Explain what is meant by logical division, and briefly state 
 its rules. Oive instances which observe, and instances which violate 
 the rules. 
 
10 EXEBCIBEB. 
 
 6. Coymnent on the following as logical divisions : — 
 (a J Pens into quill pens and steel pens. 
 
 (b) Ireland into Ulster^ Munster, Leinster and Connaught. 
 
 (c) Animals into vertebrate and invertebrate. 
 
 (d) Colour into whiteness, blackness and blueness. 
 
 (e) Lights into artificial, blice and red lights and moonlight. 
 
 ( f) Vice into an immoral act and a viechanical tool. 
 
 (g) Englishmen into rich and poor, consumptive and biliotts.. 
 
 7. Show the relation between Definition, Division and Classifica- 
 tion. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Propositions. 
 
 Having completed our investigation of the logical doctrine of 
 "terms," we now proceed to consider the teaching of Logic 
 with regard to " propositions." Just as a " term " is the 
 outward expression for the inward (psychological) fact, which 
 is called a " concept," so a " proposition " is the translation 
 into language of the inward mental act, which is called " judg- 
 ment." Now, it has already been shown that a judgment is 
 the simplest and most elementary manifestation of a complete 
 thought. Every assertion or denial that we can frame in our 
 minds is a judgment. When this mental act is expressed in 
 language, we have what is called in Logic a proposition. 
 
 A proposition, therefore, may be defined as The verbal 
 expression of a truth or falsity, or A sentence making an 
 affirmation or denial. 
 
 Propositions which make simple assertions or denials, 
 without any condition attached, are called Categorical. 
 
 A Categorical Proposition is one which simply asserts or 
 denies some fact, e.g., 
 
 All men are mortal. 
 No men are infallible. 
 
 Notice that in a categorical proposition we bring together 
 two terms, and connect them by the copula. For logical 
 purposes this copula is always the present tense of the verb 
 •" to 6e," with or without the negative particle " not.'' 
 
i9 PROPOSITIONS : 
 
 In ordinary language, of course, our categorical judgments 
 are expressed in various ways. But Logic considers that 
 3very simple assertion or denial can be expressed in one 
 general form, and, for logical purposes, the assertion or denial 
 must be reduced to this form. Hence the student must 
 become accustomed to expressing the ordinary forms of simple 
 assertions and denials in the precise form required by Logic. 
 There is no doubt that the logical form of an assertion will 
 often appear awkward and " wordy," compared with ordinary 
 conventional modes of expression, but the advantage gained 
 by the precise exposition of our assertions is of the highest 
 logical importance. Take as an illustration the assertion, 
 "John was the brother of Eichard." Li order to get the 
 present tense of the verb "to be " as the copula of this 
 sentence, it must be expressed in some such form as : — " John 
 Is a person who was the brother of Eichard." This trans- 
 formation sometimes causes a Uttle perplexity. Take, for 
 example, the following sentences : — 
 
 (1) The bell will toll to-morrow. 
 
 (2) None but the brave deserve the fair. 
 
 (3) It does not rain. 
 
 (4) Fire! 
 
 These ordinary conventional sentences, when transformed 
 into simple categorical propositions for logical purposes^ 
 become — 
 
 Subject. 
 
 Copula 
 
 Predicate. 
 
 (1) The tolling of the bell 
 
 is 
 
 an event which will 
 happen to-morrow. 
 
 (2) No not-brave persons 
 
 are 
 
 deserving of the fair. 
 
 (3) Eain 
 
 is not 
 
 falling. 
 
 (4) This property 
 
 is 
 
 on fire. 
 
CATEGORICAL AND CONDITIONAL. 48 
 
 Observe, that when a sentence is being thus transformed for 
 logical purposes, and divided into its logical elements (subject, 
 copula, predicate), if any one of the elements has been omitted in the 
 conventional form, it must be supplied in the precise logical form. 
 Thus the exclamation " Fire 1 " is sufficient, for practical purposes, to 
 convey definite information, but until its subject and copula have 
 been supplied, it is useless for logical purposes. 
 
 A categorical proposition, then, is one which makes an 
 unconditional assertion or denial. When the assertion is 
 expressed as a proposition displaying its logical elements, the 
 copula is in all cases the peremptory ** is " or " is not." But 
 many of the assertions or denials that we are making con- 
 stantly are of such a nature as to forbid the employment of 
 the unconditional " js " or "is not." To a large proportion of 
 our judgments some condition' or other is attached. Now, 
 Logic draws a sharp distinction between judgments which are 
 unconditional and those to which some condition is attached. 
 The former are categorical, the latter conditional. We shall 
 be chiefly concerned with categorical propositions, but it is 
 needful to mention the two kinds of conditional propositions 
 which are most common. 
 
 Conditional propositions are usually distinguished as Hypo- 
 thetical and Disjunctive. 
 
 1. Hypothetical ^propositions have a conjunctive condition 
 The following are examples : — 
 
 (a) If A is B, then also C is D. 
 
 (6) If Logic exercises the intellect, it ought to be- 
 studied. 
 
 (c) Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise. 
 
 Example (a) and similar examples, where symbols (A B, etc.) are 
 used, are called abstract examples ; (h) and (e) are called concrete 
 •zamplea. 
 
44 PROPOSITIONS : 
 
 2. Disjunctive propositions have an alternative condi- 
 tion, e.g. : — 
 
 {a) A is either B or C. 
 
 (6) He is either a knave or a fool. 
 
 (c) All men are either good or bad. 
 
 Sometimes we find propositions conditioned, at once conjunctively 
 and disjunctively, e.g. : — 
 
 If A is B, then O is either D or E. 
 
 If a man becomes a soldier, then he must serve either at home 
 or abroad. 
 
 Besides this obvious division of propositions into categorical 
 (unconditional) and conditional, Logic further distinguishes 
 them by their quality and their quantity. 
 
 The quality of a proposition is determined by the copula. 
 The copula may be either " is " or " is not." 
 
 In the former case the proposition is affirmative, in the 
 latter it is negative. 
 
 A is B (affirmative) (1) 
 A is not B (negative) (2) 
 
 But we may also assert — 
 
 AU A is B, 
 or only, Some A is B. 
 
 The distinction of propositions, according as the affirmation 
 or denial is made of the whole or only a. part of the subject, is 
 what is meant by determining the quantity of a proposition. 
 
 Propositions, in which the assertion or denial is made of 
 the whole of the subject, are called universal propositions. 
 Propositions, in which only part of the subject is affected are 
 called PARTICULAR propositions. 
 
 Notice carefully, that in universal propositions, the subject 
 of the proposition is distributed^ i.e., taken in its full denota- 
 tion. 
 
 In particular propositions the subject of the proposition is 
 undistributed, i.e., the extent of its denotation is indefinite. 
 
QUANTITY AND QUALITY. 46 
 
 Particular propositions are usually expressed in the form 
 Some A's are B. 
 Some A's are not B. 
 The word "some" is absolutely indefinite; it may mean 
 " few " or *' many," or indeed "all." In Logic it is the^ 
 equivalent of " one at least." 
 
 The student should also carefully note that in universal 
 propositions the subject may be either : — 
 
 {a) An undivided, whole class, of every member of which 
 the predication is made, e.g,^ "Men are mortal"; i.e., All 
 men and every individual man ; or 
 
 (6) An indivisible individual, indicated by a proper 
 name ; e.g., " John is mortal." 
 
 Propositions, which have a proper name for their subject, are 
 sometimes called Singular Propositions. In most cases they may be 
 considered only a sub-class of Universals. But instances arise which 
 may cause perplexity. Thus : " John is sometimes eloquent," might 
 be considered as universal with a somewhat complex predicate. 
 (The student will have found, ere this, that in expressing proposi- 
 tions in logical form, the predicate is often very complex). The pra 
 position in its full logical form would be: " John is a speaker who is 
 sometimes eloquent." This is a true universal. On the other hand 
 the proposition might be rendered : " Some of John's speeches are 
 eloquent," in which case the subject is particular, not universal. 
 
 These various ways of dividing propositions may now be 
 collected, thus : — 
 
 Propositions are divided 
 
 1. On the basis of their quality into {a) affirmative^ 
 
 (6) negative. 
 
 2. On the basis of their quantity into (a) universal,. 
 
 (6) particular. 
 The distinctions of quality and quantity are considered aS 
 applying only to categorical propositions. To some extent the 
 same distinctions can be applied to conditional propositions^ 
 
46 POUR PEOPOSITIONAL FORMS. 
 
 But to attempt- this would be quite beyond the scope of this 
 elementary treatise. 
 
 From this we gather that all categorical assertions or 
 denials may be grouped under four general forms. For, when 
 our assertions are expressed in logical form, we affirm that the 
 subject is, either 
 
 (1) In its whole logical extent, or 
 
 (2) In part of its logical extent, 
 
 contained under the logical extent of the predicate ; or, on the 
 other hand, the proposition excludes either 
 
 (3) The whole logical extent of its subject, or 
 
 (4) Part of the logical extent of its subject, 
 from the logical extent of its predicate. 
 
 This fourfold division answers to a combination of the 
 divisions of propositions on the two bases of quality and 
 quantity. 
 
 Every categorical proposition, true or false, that can be 
 made on any subject whatever must find its place under one 
 of the following heads : — 
 
 1. Universal affirmative, usually denoted by the symbol A. 
 
 2. Universal negative, ,, ,, ,, ,, E. 
 
 3. Particular affirmative, ,, ,, ,, „ I. 
 
 4. Particular negative, „ ,, ,, ,, 0. 
 
 The symbols A, E, I, O, are taken from the Latin words affirmo 
 and nego. A and I are the first two vowels of the former word, E and 
 O the vowels of the latter word. 
 
 The student should carefully consider the following simple 
 examples of the four forms of which, in each case, an abstract 
 example, a concrete example, and a diagrammatic illustration 
 are given. Notice the meaning of "is "in the prepositional 
 forms. " Is " means " is contained in " ; " is not " means " is 
 not contained in." " All X is Y " thus means " All X is 
 contained in Y." 
 
FOUB PROPOSITIONAIi FORMS. 
 
 47 
 
 Form A. — Universal Affirmative. 
 All X is Y. 
 All gold is yellow. 
 
 Form E. — Universal Negative. 
 No X is Y. 
 No man is infallible. 
 
 Y 
 
 Form I. — Particular Affirmative. 
 Some X is Y. 
 Some men are wise. 
 
48 four proposition al forms. 
 
 Form 0. — Particular Negative.* 
 Some X is not Y. 
 Some men are not wise. 
 
 The folloiuing ohsei'vations on this fourfold form of Pro- 
 positions are of the utmost importance : — 
 
 Form A. — The subject is distributed, i.e., taken in its 
 full extension : the predicate is not distributed. When 
 . we assert that " all gold is yellow," we mean that gold, 
 at all times and in all forms, is yellow; therefore, the 
 term " gold " is fully distributed. But the predicate is 
 not distributed. For the proposition asserts only that 
 amongst an indefinite number of yellow things, gold is 
 always one. 
 
 Form E. — Both the subject and the predicate are 
 distributed. When we assert that " no man is infallible," 
 we mean that the two terms "man " and "infallibility '' 
 are mutually exclusive. The attribute of infallibility 
 cannot be predicated of any man in the whole universe. 
 
 *Ia the diagrammatic illustrations the shaded parts always represent the 
 subject of the proposition. The student must note that the proposition only 
 contains information about the part shaded. Thus in the diagram representing 
 the proposition " Some X is Y," our information is confined to the shaded part 
 of X entirely We could not assume therefrom that some X is not Y. The 
 proposition only asserts that some portion of X is included within Y. As a 
 matter of fact sJl might be, but the proposition does not say so. These 
 iiagramraatic representations of propositions are called Euler's Circles, and are 
 open to much criticism. 
 
SIGNS OF QUANTITY IN LOQIO. 49 
 
 Form I. — Neither the subject nor the predicate is 
 distributed. When we assert that " some men are wise," 
 we mean that amongst men there is an indefinite number, 
 forming an equally indefinite proportion of those beinga 
 of whom the attribute of wisdom may be predicated. 
 
 Form 0. — The predicate only is distributed. When we 
 assert that " some men are not wise," we mean th^ an 
 indefinite number of men are excluded from the whole 
 definite class of beings, of whom the attribute of wisdom 
 may be predicated. 
 
 These observations may be summarised : — 
 
 Form A distributes its subject only. 
 
 ,, E distributes both its subject and its predicate. 
 ,, I distributes neither its subject nor its predicate. 
 ,, O distributes its predicate only. 
 
 The student will notice that "this," "each," "every," 
 "all," "no," and "some" are the only signs of quantity 
 recognised by Logic. In ordinary speech many others are 
 used, but they must be reduced to one of the signs given above 
 before they can be considered in a logical reference. 
 
 Note particularly that expressions like "few," "many," or 
 such fractional terms as " three-fourths " are all considered 
 equivalent to " some." In short, " some " really stands for 
 " some at least " ; and beyond that, the word is altogether 
 indefinite. " Any " and similar expressions must be con- 
 sidered as equivalent to " every." 
 
 Cases will sometimes arise in which it is a matter of uncertainty 
 whether a given expression is intended to be taken as a universal or 
 a particular. This is especially so in current sayings and proverbs, 
 e.g., " Knowledge is power," " Haste makes waste." Such cases can 
 only be determined by a careful survey of the facts the expressions 
 are supposed to summarise. 
 
60 BZEBCISE8. 
 
 EXERCISES ON CHAPTER VII. 
 
 i. Define a logical proposition ; and enumerate with examples^ 
 the various lands of propositions. 
 
 2. What do you understand as the exact meaning of the logical 
 copula ? 
 
 3. What are the signs of quantity recognised by Logic ? How do 
 they compare with those used in grammar ? 
 
 4. Give the logical equivalent of each of the following expressions : 
 " All are Twt** ; " Only tliese are " ; *' All except one " ; " Scarcely 
 any " ; " Few are not.'' 
 
 5. RediLce each of the following to strict logical form, and indicate 
 wJietlier the proposition is A, E, I, or O : — 
 
 (a) All birds have two wings. 
 
 (b) All his shots except two hit the mark. 
 ( c) Tlie more tJie merrier. 
 
 (d) TJiere's not a joy tlie world can give like that it takes 
 away. 
 
 (e) All that glitters is not gold. 
 
 (f) He jests at scars who never felt a wound. 
 
 (g) None fail to remain poor who are both ignorant and lazy. 
 
 6. The following sentences are somewhat ambiguous. Make at 
 least two logical propositions of each : — 
 
 (a) All are not clever who read much. 
 
 (b) Some of the guests behaved disgracefully. 
 
 (c) All the books cost a sovereign. 
 
 7. What logical 2^roposition is iinplied in each case, wlien tlie 
 following are declared to be false : — 
 
 (a) Honesty is tlie best policy, 
 
 (b) All men are liars. 
 
 (c) Sonie horse dealers are honest. 
 
 8. Express in the simplest logical form you can the sense of the 
 following passages : — 
 
 (a) It never rains but it pours. 
 
 (b) You cannot have your cake and eat it. 
 'e) Unless help arrives we are beaten. 
 
 (d) Many are called, but few are chosen. 
 
 9. Say whether the following is a categorical or hypothetical 
 proposition, and why : — Trespassers will be prosecuted. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Immediate Inference. 
 
 The whole of our study thus far has been a preparation for 
 the investigation of inference or reasoning. Inference, in its 
 wider meaning, is the derivation of one proposition from one 
 other proposition or from two other propositions. Thosa 
 cases in which a conclusion is evolved from some one pro- 
 position, without the help of any other, are called Immediatb 
 Inferences. Thus, when we say " All animals are organised 
 beings," we are able to infer directly from this that any 
 particular animal is an organised being, and, again, that "no 
 unorganised beings are animals." Every single assertion or 
 denial that can be made will yield quite a number of other 
 ^propositions, which differ from the original proposition in 
 logical quantity or quality, or both. 
 
 An Immediate Inference, then, is the inferential derivation 
 of a new proposition from some one given proposition. 
 
 The number and variety of conclusions which can be immediately 
 derived from any single propc«ition, will be quite surprising to one 
 who is not familiar with this kind of exercise. Take, for example, 
 the following A (universal affirmative) proposition :— •• All X is Y." 
 
OS OPPOSITIOlf. 
 
 What Inferences can be immediately derived from this ? Proceed 
 thus : All X is Y ; No X is not-Y ; Some X is Y ; Some X is not 
 not-Y ; No not-Y is X ; All not-Y is not-X ; Some not-X is not-Y ; 
 Some not-X is not Y. 
 
 Thia will be clearer if a concrete example is given :— " All men are 
 mortal." From this we may infer : " No men are not-mortal " ; 
 " Some men are mortal " ; •• Some mortal beings are not not-men " ; 
 •' No not-mortal beings are men," etc. 
 
 Now, without considering whether the examples just given 
 are exhaustive, or whether all the conclusions are of practical 
 importance, we will proceed to discuss the more important- 
 forms of Immediate Inference under the following heads : — 
 
 I. Immediate Inferences of Opposition. 
 
 II. „ „ „ Conversion. 
 
 III. „ „ „ Permutation. 
 
 I. Inferences of Opposition. — Propositions are said to be 
 opposed to each other when they have the some subject and 
 predicate respectively, but differ in quantity or quaHty, or 
 both. 
 
 Of the several kinds of opposition, that known as Contra- 
 dictory Opposition is the most perfect and of the greatest 
 logical value. This kind of opposition is an application of the 
 " law of the excluded middle," viz., that, of two contradictory 
 propositions, one must be true and the other false. This 
 occurs when an A proposition is contradicted by an proposi- 
 tion ; or an E proposition is contradicted by an I proposition. 
 
 A.— All X is Y. 
 Contradictory =0. — Some X is not Y. 
 
 E.— No M is N. 
 Contradictory = I.— Some M is N. 
 
OPPOSITION. 63 
 
 Taking either of these pairs of propositions, we see at once 
 that both cannot be true and that they cannot both be false. 
 Therefore, if either of the two propositions is affirmed to be 
 true, we immediately infer the falsity of the other. 
 
 Contrary Opposition is that which exists between an A 
 and an E proposition, having the same subject and predicate. 
 In this case, both propositions may be false, but both cannot 
 be true, e.g. : — 
 
 A. — All men are good. 
 
 Contrary =E. — No men are good. 
 
 This kind of opposition is of much less logical value. If we 
 know that one proposition is true, we may immediately infer 
 the falsity of the contrary. But if we know that one proposi- 
 tion is false, we cannot infer the truth of its contrary. 
 
 Sub-Contrary Opposition is that which exists between an 
 I and an proposition, which both have the same subject 
 and predicate : — 
 
 I. — Some men are wise. 
 
 Sub-contrary 0. — Some men are not wise. 
 
 In this case both of the propositions may be true, but both 
 cannot be false. If we know that one of them is false, we can 
 
 immediately infer the truth of its sub-contrary. 
 
 Subaltern Opposition is that which exists between a 
 universal and a particular proposition, i.e., propositions which 
 both have the same subject and predicate, but differ in 
 quantity : — 
 
 A. — All men are mortal. 
 Subaltern I. — Some men are mortal. 
 . From any universal prop^ RJtio^ "^"^ ^°'^ immo/liQfoly in^^y 
 t he truth of any pa/ticular proposition of the same quality 
 (an I from an A, or an from an E), but not Yice versa* 
 
64 
 
 OPPOSITION, 
 
 An ancient square sets forth these various relations of 
 opposition thus : — 
 
 A Contrartes £ 
 
 N.B. — Propositions must always have the same subject 
 and predicate before we can place them in opposition. 
 
 There should now be found no difficulty in determining 
 what inferences can be immediately drawn from the known 
 truth or falsity of any one of the four ordinary propositional 
 forms. 
 
 For convenience the student is advised to commit the following to 
 memory :— 
 
 Contradictories cannot both be true, nor can they both be false. 
 
 Contraries may both be false, but both cannot be true. 
 
 Sub-contraries may both be true, but cannot both be false. 
 
 Subalterns may both be true and both false. If the universal is 
 true so is the particular ; but the truth of the particular does not 
 imply the truth of the universal. 
 
CONVERSION. 65 
 
 II. Inferences of ConveFsion. — By conversion is meant the 
 immediate inferring of a new proposition from a given proposi- 
 tion, in which the subject of the given proposition forms the 
 predicate of the new proposition, and the predicate the subject. 
 Thus from "No stones are organised beings" — is obtained by 
 conversion, " No organised beings are stones." 
 
 The remarks in Chapter VII. on the distribution of the 
 subject and predicate in the four propositional forms, are of 
 great consequence here. For, in converting a proposition, care 
 must be taken that the two terms are used in precisely the 
 same extent in the new (or inferred) proposition as they were 
 in the original proposition. Now, in converting an E or an I 
 proposition, no difficulty arises. "No X is Y" distributes both 
 its subject and its predicate. Hence, we may at once say " No 
 Y is X." So, also, the I proposition " Some M is N " distributes 
 neither its subject nor its predicate. Thus, we can immediately 
 say " Some N is M." But in the A proposition " All S is P," 
 the subject S is distributed, but the predicate Pis undistributed. 
 If we converted this into " All P is S " we should distribute P 
 in the new proposition, whereas it was not distributed in the 
 original proposition. This we may not do. From " All S is 
 P" we can only infer " Some P is S." Hence we say that A 
 propositions can only be converted " by limitation " {per 
 accidens). 
 
 Summarizing these points we learn that : — 
 
 From an A proposition we can infer an I proposition by 
 " conversion by limitation." 
 
 From an E proposition we can obtain another E proposi- 
 tion by simple conversion. 
 
 From an I proposition we can infer another I proposition 
 by simple conversion. 
 
 Lastly, we have to consider the case of O (particular 
 negative) propositions. Can these be converted ? Take, for 
 instance, " Some X is not Y." Here X, the subject, is not 
 
56 PERMUTATION. 
 
 distributed. If we convert the proposition and say " Some Y 
 is not X," we distribute X in the new proposition. But, in 
 conversion, we may never distribute a term in the new proposi- 
 tion, which is undistributed in the original proposition. Hence, 
 we conclude that O propositions cannot be converted. 
 
 Practice in drawing immediate inferences by the conversion 
 of given propositions is a most valuable test of the student's 
 progress in logical study. Both in ordinary discourse and in 
 examinations most ludicrous results follow from not observing 
 the rules of legitimate conversion. One examiner says that 
 when he has asked for the converse of the proposition '• None 
 but the brave deserve the fair," students have said with perfect 
 seriousness: "The fair deserve none but the brave," or " No 
 one ugly deserves the brave." The error in such cases arises 
 from the fact that the student has omitted to put the given 
 sentence into exact propositional form, as logic requires. If 
 this were done the sentence would become : — "No one who is 
 not-brave is deserving of the fair," and this is a simple E pro- 
 position, and may therefore be converted simply into " No one 
 deserving of the fair is not-brave," or, expressed more con- 
 ventionally, " No one deserving of the fair is a coward." 
 
 III. Inferences of Permutation. — Of this kind of immediate 
 inference there are several forms : — 
 
 (a) By Obversion. — Here we infer a new proposition, having 
 for its predicate the contradictory of the predicate, e.g. : — 
 Original proposition. — All X is Y. 
 Inference by Obversion. — No X is not-Y. 
 
 We may always obvert a proposition, if at the same time 
 we change its quality. The rule of obversion is usually given 
 thus : Substitute for the predicate term its contrapositive, and 
 change the quality of the proposition. 
 
 Contrapositive is a mediaeval word for the opposite of a term. 
 Thus " not-A " is the contrapositive of " A." It is convenient to use 
 this word so that " contradictory " may be used exclusively of 
 propositions. 
 
PBBMUTATION. 
 
 67 
 
 Thus, All X is Y yields No X is not-Y. 
 
 No X is Y „ AU X is not-Y. 
 
 Some X is Y „ Some X is not not-Y. 
 
 Some X is not Y „ Some X is not-Y. 
 
 (b) By Contraposition. — In this case we infer a new pro- 
 position which has the contrapositive of the original predicate 
 <or its subject, and the original subject for its predicate, e.g. : — 
 
 Original proposition. — All X is Y. 
 Contrapositive. — No not-Y is X. 
 
 Immediate inference by contraposition is sometimes called 
 the converse by contraposition. 
 
 From A, E and of the propositional forms we may infer 
 A contrapositive, but not from I. 
 
 Original Proposition. 
 
 All X is Y. 
 No X is Y. 
 Some X is not Y, 
 
 Contrapositive. 
 
 No not-Y is X. 
 Some not-Y is X. 
 Some not-Y is X. 
 
 In drawing immediate inferences accuracy is all important. 
 The exposition in this chapter has been illustrated by symbols, 
 but if the principles have been duly grasped it will not be 
 difficult to apply them to concrete examples. In doing so the 
 student must always reduce the sentences given as examples 
 to strict logical form, if they are not already in that condition. 
 The great importance of this subject makes it advisable that 
 several worked examples should be presented for the reader's 
 consideration. 
 
58 WORKED EXAMPLES. 
 
 1. '^ hat immediate inferences are derivable from, the pro- 
 position ^^ All really happy men are virtuous " ? 
 
 (a) The Truth of the Subaltern: "Some really happy 
 men are virtuous." 
 
 (6) The Falsity of the Contradictory : " Some really happy 
 men are not virtuous." 
 
 (c) The Falsity of the Contrary: " No really happy men 
 are virtuous." 
 
 {d) By Conversion : " Some virtuous men are really 
 happy." 
 
 (e) By Ob version : "No really happy men are not 
 virtuous." 
 
 (/) By Contraposition : "No not- virtuous men are 
 really happy." 
 
 2. Give the Converse, the Obverse and the Contrapositive 
 of the following propositions : — (a) The longest road comes to 
 cm end; (b) UnasTced advice is seldom acceptable. (Each of 
 these propositions must first be reduced to logical form.) 
 
 {a) This sentence=" The longest road is limited." This 
 is a universal affirmative. 
 
 Its Converse is : " Some (one) limited thing is the longest 
 road." 
 
 Its Obverse is : " The longest road is not unlimited." 
 
 Its Contrapositive is: " No unlimited thing is the longestr 
 road." 
 
 (6) This sentence =" Some unasked advice is unaccept- 
 able." This is a particular affirmative proposition. 
 
 Its Converse is: "Amongst (some) unacceptable things 
 is unasked advice." 
 
 Its Obverse is : "Some unasked advice is not acceptable."^ 
 
 The sentence being an I proposition it has no contra^ 
 positive. 
 
WORKED EXAMPLES. 69 
 
 8. Convert and contraposit the proposition^ " For every 
 wrong there is a legal remedy.^' 
 
 The proposition reduced to logical form is : " Every 
 wrong is capable of a legal remedy." 
 
 Its converse is : " Some things capable of legal remedy 
 are wrongs." 
 
 Its contrapositive is : "Nothing incapable of legal remedy 
 is a wrong." 
 
 4. What 'eductions are possible from the proposition, 
 *' Amethysts are precious stones " ? {N.B. — " Eduction " is a 
 term frequently used for " Immediate inference?^) * 
 
 The given proposition is a universal affirmative, " All 
 amethysts are precious stones," and may be treated as the 
 proposition in the first-worked example. 
 
60 EXERCISES. 
 
 EXEECISES ON CHAPTEE VIII. 
 
 1. Explain and illiLstrate by exarnples the difference between the 
 converse and the contradictory of a proposition ; and say when and 
 under what conditions the converse of a proposition is or is not 
 necessarily true. 
 
 2. Explain with illustrations, the difference between the contrary 
 and the contradictory of a proposition. 
 
 3. Explain why a universal negative proposition admits of the 
 conversion of its terms. ^^ All equilateral triangles are equiangular. ''^ 
 Say whetlier the terms of this proposition are convertible. If not, 
 why not ? 
 
 4. Give thi converse, the contradictory and contrary of " All A is 
 B " ; " Some men are wise." 
 
 5. Give the contradictory and the converse of : — 
 
 (a) Two blacks don't make a white. 
 
 (b) James struck John. 
 
 (c) Three-fourths of the candidates passed. 
 
 6. Assign the logical relation between each of the following pro- 
 positions with the proposition " All crystals are solids " ; — 
 
 (a) Sorne crystals are solids. 
 
 (b) No crystals are not solids. 
 
 ( c) Some solids are crystals. 
 
 7. What is mediate inference ? Give where possible the converse, 
 the obverse and the contrapositive of: — 
 
 {a) (said Hudibras) : " I smell a rat." 
 
 {Jo) Where no oxen are, the crib is clean. 
 
 ( c) Only protestant princes can occupy the English throne. 
 
 8. What is opposition ? Which of the forms of (ypposition has tJie 
 greatest value and why ? 
 
CHAPTEB IX. 
 
 Mediate Inference.— The Syllogism, 
 
 Immediate inference is the derivation of a new proposition 
 from some given proposition. However useful this exercise 
 may be, the new proposition is always recognised as only a 
 different way of expressing the original proposition. Mediate 
 inference professes to give a conclusion of a much more 
 fruitful kind. In every example of a mediate inference, two 
 propositions, and two only, are implied. In these two pro- 
 positions the conclusion to be drawn is potentially contained, 
 and out of these two propositions the conclusion is actually 
 drawn by reasoning. The two propositions given are called the 
 premisses of the conclusion. 
 
 It will be seen afterwards that in ordinary discourse the 
 two premisses and the conclusion are seldom fully expressed. 
 One of the premisses is generally left to be understood, but, 
 in spite of this, it is implied in the reasoning. When, however, 
 the two premisses and the derived conclusion are fully and 
 formally stated, the expression is called a Syllogism. Formal 
 Logic assumes that, in every instance in which we draw a new 
 and fruitful conclusion, the reasoning when fully expressed 
 must take the form of a Syllogism, 
 
62 THE SYLLOGIBM. 
 
 A Syllogism, then, is a conclusion expressly evolved from 
 two propositions called its premisses. 
 
 Ea^ch of the premisses of a syllogism must once have been a con- 
 clusion from two other more remote premisses, unless one of the 
 premisses is the statement of a truth which is axiomatic in its 
 nature. All that we know, inferentially, about the universe, is known 
 in the form of a vast number of conclusions drawn from other 
 premisses. Knowledge is thus a net-work of conclusions, suspended 
 ultimately upon a few axiomatic or self-evident truths. All arguing 
 Implies that there are certain remote premisses or assumptions, 
 bearing logically on all questions, and about which the disputants 
 must be agreed. 
 
 It is worthy of observation that some persons, who are not acute 
 reasoners, are yet able to see truth at a glance. Others are subtle 
 and ready reasoners whose natural intuition (insight) is small. 
 Argument and insight are often found in inverse ratio. It has been 
 remarked that, generally, women are more strongly endowed with 
 insight, and men with reasoning power. 
 
 The following is a simple form of a Syllogism : — 
 
 All men may be educatedo ,^ 
 
 5- (Premisses.) 
 Savages are men. } 
 
 Therefore, Savages may be educated. (Conclusion.) 
 Notice that in this example there are three propositions. 
 Of these the first two are the premisses, and the last the 
 conclusion. There are also three terms : " men," " savages " 
 and " educated," and the last two of these appear in the 
 conclusion. The term which forms the predicate of the con- 
 clusion ('* educated ") is called the major term, and the term 
 which forms the subject of the conclusion (" savages ") is 
 called the minor term. The term which appears in both the 
 premisses, but which does not appear in the conclusion 
 (" men ") is called the middle term. Further, the premiss 
 which contains the major term (*' All men may be educated ") 
 is called the major premiss; and the premiss which contains 
 the minor term ("All savages are men") is called the minor 
 premiss. These general definitions hold good for all kinds of 
 syllogisms. 
 
BUIiSS OF THE SYIiLOaiBM. 6S 
 
 From these definitions it will be easy to see that a syllogism 
 is the logical comparison of the two terms which appear in the 
 conclusion, by means of a third, or middle, term. 
 
 Logic lays down three fundamental rules which apply to 
 every variety of syllogism. 
 
 1. Each syllogism must have three, and only three, 
 terms ; it must have three, and only three, propositions. 
 
 2. Of the three terms thus involved in every syllogism, 
 the middle term {i.e., the term common to both premisses) 
 must be taken universally {i.e., it must be distributed), at 
 least in one of the premisses ; and neither of the other 
 terms, i.e., the major or the minor, can be taken univer- 
 sally in the conclusion, unless it was taken universally in 
 the premiss in which it occurred. 
 
 3. No conclusion can legitimately be drawn if both the 
 premisses are negative ; or if both are particular ; and, if 
 one of the premisses is particular, the conclusion must be 
 particular; or, if one of the premisses is negative, the 
 conclusion must be negative. 
 
 Notes on the Canons, or Eules of the Syllogism. 
 
 Rule I. -We require to add that the terms must be used 
 throughout in exactly the same sense. Owing to the ambiguity 
 of words it sometimes happens that a syllogism will seem only 
 to contain three terms when in reality there are four, i.e., one 
 of the terms has been used in two distinct senses. In the 
 fallacy quoted in the early part of this work we have an 
 example of this : 
 
 He who is most hungry eats most. 
 He who eats least is most hungry, 
 Therefore he who eats least eats most. 
 
64 RULKS OF THE SYLLOGISM. 
 
 In this example a little reflection will show that terms arer 
 not being used throughout in the same sense, and that there 
 are in reality more than three terms involved. 
 
 Rule 2. — The middle term must be once distributed, other- 
 wise it cannot be a medium for comparing the other twa 
 terms. It must be either wholly in, or wholly out of one of 
 the other terms before it can be the means of establishing 
 a connection between them. 
 
 If we use a diagrammatic illustration of the Syllogism, th« 
 necessity of the distribution of the middle term is obvious. 
 
 Thus let the Syllogism bo 
 All M is P. 
 All S is M. 
 .-. All S is P. 
 
 Here M is the middle term, and it is shown to be wholly in P. 
 If, however, M were not wholly distributed we should have 
 to represent it partially within P. Consequently, we should 
 not be able to say whether S was contained in the part of M 
 within P or in that part of M which is without P and of 
 which we are not supposed to know anything. 
 
 A syllogism with an undistributed middle term is the most 
 common form of erroneous reasoning. 
 
BULES OF THE SYLIiOGISM. 65 
 
 A term must not be distributed in the conclusion that was 
 Qot distributed in the premisses. Obviously, if an assertion is 
 not made about the whole of a term in the premisses, we cannot 
 make it of the whole of the term in the conclusion without 
 going beyond what has been given. When this rule is broken 
 in the case of the major term, it is called the Illicit process of 
 the Major ; and in the case of the minor term, Illicit process of 
 the Minor. If we were to admit that a term might be taken 
 universally in the conclusion, which was not so taken in the 
 premisses, we should be admitting that the " part is greater 
 than the whole." 
 
 Rule 3. — Two negatives cannot yield a conclusion. For 
 two negative propositions are really a declaration that no 
 connection exists between the major and minor term and 
 the term by which they were to be compared — in other 
 words there is no middle term, and no Syllogism can be 
 formed with two negative premisses. That two particulars 
 cannot give a valid conclusion, and that the conclusion follows 
 the weakest premiss are corollaries from the previous rules. 
 
 The general rules of the Syllogism depend upon one great 
 cajaon, viz. : " Two terms that logically agree with the same 
 third term, must logically agree with each other ; and two 
 terms, one of which agrees while the other disagrees with the 
 same third term must logically disagree with each other." 
 
 The ultimate principle of reasoning thus defined, is expressed ' 
 its most general forms in the "Dictum de omni et nullo " of Aristotl* 
 "Whatever is predicated aflBrmatively or negatively of any class, 
 must, on pain of involving inconsistent (contradictory) thought, be 
 predicated of whatever is contained under that class." Aristotle 
 regarded this as the axiom on which all syllogistic inference is based. 
 
 Every conclusion drawn in a syllogism, where the above 
 general rules have been observed, is an affirmative or negative 
 proposition deduced by means of a minor (or applying) premiss 
 
66 THB STIJ^OGISTIC MOODS. 
 
 from a more general proposition that is assumed to be true, 
 and in which the conclusion was virtuaUy contained. 
 
 It can also be shown that there must be four, and need not 
 be more than four syllogistic forms. For, the general (major) 
 proposition, which virtually contains the conclusion must be 
 universal (either A or E), and the applying (minor) premiss 
 must bring either the logical whole, or a part only, of its subject 
 into comparison with the middle term. The minor premiss, 
 therefore, will be either A or I. The general rules of the 
 syllogism decide the conclusion. Hence, we may say that 
 every reasoning may be exhibited by one or other of the 
 following combinations of the four propositional forms : — 
 
 AAA. AIL EAE. E I O. 
 
 These letters, of course, tell us the quantity and quality of 
 the two premisses, and the conclusion of the syllogism which 
 each triplet forms. The arranging of the symbolic letters in 
 different ways is called the Mood of the sylloginm. Thus, AAA 
 represents a syllogistic mood in which both the premisses and 
 the conclusion are universal afi&rmatives. E I represents a 
 syllogistic mood in which the major premiss is a universal 
 negative, the minor premiss a particular affirmative, and the 
 conclusion a particular negative. The following are examples 
 of four forms of syllogism : — 
 
 Mood AAA. 
 All men may be educated. 
 All savages are men. 
 .'. All savages may be educated. 
 All M is P. All S is M. .-. All S is P. 
 
 [N.B. — ^This alone of all forms of syllogism gives a universal 
 affirmative conclusion, and is, therefore, the one most convenient 
 for expressing scientific reasonings with their universal afidrma 
 tive conclusions.] 
 
 .^^, 
 
THE 8TLL0GIBTIC MOODS. 67 
 
 Mood AIL 
 All educating influences are good. 
 Some difficulties are educating influences, 
 .*. Some difficulties are good. 
 All M is P. Some S is M. .-. Some S is P. 
 
 Mood E A E. 
 No Europeans are cannibals, 
 All Englishmen are Europeans, 
 .'. No Englishmen are cannibals. 
 No M is P. AU S is M. .-. No S is P. 
 
 Mood E I 0. 
 Whatever is followed by remorse is not desirable, 
 Some pleasures are followed by remorse, 
 
 .'. Some pleasures are not desirable. 
 
 No M is P. Some S is M. .•. Some S is not P. 
 
 The student is advised at this point to transform some 
 simple arguments from the form in which they are ordinarily 
 used, into precise syllogistic form. Consider for example the 
 following : — 
 
 1. " There are no foreigners amongst the wounded^ so no 
 Frenchman received a wound." 
 
 Here we have given a major premiss and a conclusion. In 
 order to express the statement in syllogistic form we must 
 supply the minor premiss. The passage may then be written 
 as a Syllogism in E A E : — 
 
 No foreigners are wounded 
 (All Frenchmen are foreigners) 
 .'. No Frenchmen are wounded. 
 
HB EXEBCISSS. 
 
 2. " ^0 war is long popular ; for every war increase* 
 taxation : a/nd the popularity of anything that touches the- 
 pocket is short livedo 
 
 This may be ^vritten as a Syllogism in E A E thus : — 
 
 Nothing that increases taxation is long popular. 
 Every war increases taxation. 
 .*. No war is long popular. 
 
 8. " For some wars there has been no justification ; for 
 they have been harmfully aggressive, and such aggression- 
 is without excuse.'' 
 
 This may be expressed as a Syllogism in E I O, thus :— 
 No harmful aggression is justifiable, 
 Some wars are harmfully aggressive, 
 ,•. Some wars are not justifiable. 
 
 EXEECISES ON CHAPTEB IX. 
 
 1. Wliat is understood by a proposition, a premiss, a conclusion^, 
 and a syllogism ? Give an example of each. 
 
 2. " From negative premisses you can infer nothing.'' Explain 
 a/nd illustrate this statement. 
 
 3. Show how logical form as displayed in the syllogism tends Uy 
 clearness of thought. 
 
 4. Give a clear explanation of the rule concerning the middle 
 term of a syllogism. 
 
 5. Enumerate the cases in which no valid concltision can bt 
 drawn from two premisses. 
 
 6. Supply a premiss that will make the folloiuing reasoning 
 correct : *' There is no Englishman among the wounded, so no 
 officer can have received a wound." 
 
 7. Put the following argument into syllogistic form : — " How can 
 anyone maintain that pain is always an evil, who admits that 
 remorse involves pain, and yet may sometimes be a real good ? " 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 The Figures of the Syllogism. 
 
 In one or other of these four syllogistic forms all our reason- 
 ings might be expressed, just as all our judgments could be 
 expressed in one or other of the prepositional forms. But 
 Logic takes cognisance of many other syllogistic forms besides 
 these four. The question may suggest itself — why should we 
 add to these four forms, if they are sufficient for the unabridged 
 expression of all sorts of reasonings ? The answer is that the 
 addition is one of practical convenience. It will be found 
 that many of the concrete reasonings of ordinary life, though 
 capable of being expressed in one of the four syllogistic forms, 
 yet find a more convenient and natural expression in one or other 
 of the additional forms. The way in which the additional 
 syllogistic forms are obtained is by varying the jposition of the 
 terms in the prermsaes. The four syllogistic forms already con- 
 sidered have certain features in common. Thus, in each case the 
 middle term is the subject of the major premiss and the predicate 
 of the minor premiss. Also, the middle term is distributed in the 
 major premiss but not in the minor premiss. On account of 
 this similarity the four syllogistic forms already given are 
 classed together, and constitute what is known as Figubb I. oi 
 the syllogism. 
 
70 
 
 FIGUBBB OF THE SYLLOQIBM. 
 
 But we can frame a series of syllogisms which violate none 
 of the general rules of the syllogisms, in which the relations of 
 Figure I. are varied. Thus we may have the middle term as 
 the predicate of each proposition. In these cases the middle 
 term will always be of greater logical extent than either of the 
 other two. The syllogisms which exhibit these characteristics 
 are classed together as Figure II. 
 
 Just as there were four valid moods under Figure I., so 
 there are four valid moods under Figure II. The student should 
 construct concrete illustrations by reference to the following 
 abstract examples of each of the moods of Figure II. : — 
 
 AEE. 
 All P is M. 
 No S is M. 
 No S is P. 
 
 A 0. 
 
 All P is M. 
 
 Some S is not M. 
 Some S is not P. 
 
 E AE. 
 
 No P is M. 
 I All S is M. 
 ! No S is P. 
 
 EIO. 
 I No P is M. 
 I Some S is M. 
 ' Some S is not P. 
 
 Notice that in Figure II. the conclusion in each mood is a 
 negative one. Hence, this figure is the most convenient for 
 expressing argumentative objections and refutations. 
 
 When the middle term is made the subject of each premiss, 
 and is, therefore, of less logical extent than the other two 
 terms, we get a series of syllogisms which are grouped together 
 as forming Figure III. But for reasons that will afterwards 
 appear, we can form six valid moods of this figure. Thus : — 
 
 A A I. 
 
 All M is P. 
 AU M is S. 
 Some S is P. 
 
 AIL 
 All M is P. 
 Some M is S. 
 Some S is P. 
 
 E AO 
 No M is P. 
 AU M is S. 
 Some S is not P. 
 
 EIO. 
 No M is P. 
 Some M is S. 
 Some S is not P. 
 
 • I A I. 
 
 Some M is P. 
 All M is S. 
 Some S is P. 
 
 AO. 
 
 Some M is not P. 
 All M is S. 
 Some S is not P. 
 
FIGURES OF THE SYIiLOGISM. 
 
 71 
 
 Notice that a particular conclusion only is obtained in each 
 mood of Figure III. Hence this mood is well fitted for pro- 
 pounding examples argumentatively, or for establishing some 
 particular or indefinite conclusion. 
 
 There is yet a further group of syllogisms, known as 
 Figure IV, in which the middle term is the predicate of the 
 major premiss, and the subject of the minor. This figure has 
 five moods, viz : — 
 
 A A I. 
 All P is M. 
 All M is S. 
 Some S is P. 
 
 AEE. 
 All P is M. 
 No M is S. 
 No S is P. 
 
 E AO. 
 No P is 11. 
 AllMisS. 
 Some S is not P. 
 
 I A I. 
 
 Some P is M. 
 All M is S. 
 Some S is P. 
 
 EIO. 
 No P is M. 
 
 Some M is S. 
 Some S is not P. 
 
 The fourth figure is clumsy and unnatural, and is omitted 
 altogether hy many logicians. It is worth while to notice the 
 following results, obtained from a comparison of the conclusions 
 in the various moods of the four figures : — 
 
 A (universal affirmative) conclusions can only be 
 Obtained in one figure and in one mood of that figure. 
 
 E (universal negative) conclusions can be obtained in 
 three figures or four moods. 
 
 I (particular affirmative) conclusions can be obtained in 
 three figures or in six moods. 
 
 (particular negative) conclusions can be obtained in 
 each of the four figures or in eight moods. 
 
 From this it follows that A conclusions are the most difficult 
 to establish, and the easiest to overthrow. O conclusions, on 
 the other hand, are the easiest to argue for, but the hardest to 
 
72 PIGUEES OP THE SYLLOGISM. 
 
 disprove. Or, more generally, universal and definite conclusions 
 are most easily overthrown, and particular and inaelmite con- 
 clusions are most easily maintained. 
 
 Special Rules of the Figures of the Syllogisms. 
 
 In addition to the general rules to which all syllogisms must 
 conform, logicians have deduced certain simple rules applicable 
 to the different Figures. 
 
 In the First Figure, — 
 
 {a) The major premiss must be universal. 
 (6) The minoi: premiss must be affirmative. 
 
 In the Second Figure, — 
 
 (a) The major premiss must be universal. 
 
 (6) One premiss and the conclusion must be negative. 
 
 In the Third Figure, — 
 
 {a) The minor premiss must be affirmative. 
 (6) The conclusion must be particular. 
 
 In the Fourth Figure, — 
 
 (a) When the major premiss is affirmative, the minor 
 premiss must be universal. 
 
 (6) When the minor premiss is affirmative, the con- 
 clusion must be particular. 
 
 (c) In negative moods, the major premiss must be 
 universal. 
 
 These special rules of the figures do not introduce new 
 material, they are only a concise statement deduced from 
 results previously obtained. 
 
EXBBCISBB. 78 
 
 EXERCISES ON CHAPTER X. 
 
 1. What are the figures of the Syllogism ? Examine whether 
 J A I, E 1 are valid or invalid in each of the figures. 
 
 2. Which figure is most convenient (1) for overthrowing an 
 udversary^s conclusion ; (2) for establishing a negative conclusion; 
 (3) for proving a universal truth. 
 
 3. Gfive the special rules of the Figures. 
 
 4. Express the following argument by a Syllogism of tlie third 
 figure :—Some things which have a practical worth are also of 
 theoretical value : for every science has a theoretical as well as a 
 practical value. 
 
 6. What moods are good in the first- figure and faulty in the 
 second, and vice versa ? Why are they excluded in one figure and 
 not in the other ? 
 
 6. From which syllogisms can you infer universal, particular^ 
 negative inferences, or none at all ? 
 
 7. Enumerate briefly the conditions of a valid deduction. 
 
 8. Construct a Syllogism in I A I to prove tiiat some taxation is 
 necessary. 
 
CHAPTEB XI. 
 
 The Reduction of Syllogisms. 
 
 It has already been observed that all reasonings may find 
 their expression in one of the four moods of Figure I. The 
 other figures are often convenient for special purposes, but 
 inasmuch as the first figure is considered the most direct and 
 perfect mode of expressing our reasoning, Logic shows how 
 any syllogism of Figures II., III., and IV. (called the indirect 
 figures) may be transformed into one of the moods of the first 
 figure. This process is called the Beduction of Syllogisms. 
 There are fifteen moods altogether in the three indirect figures, 
 and thirteen of them may be reduced : (1) by the conversion of 
 one or more of the three propositions in the syllogism to be 
 reduced, (2) by the transposition of the premisses, or (3) by 
 both of these processes. 
 
 [A 0, Figure II. and GAG, Figure III. are exceptions^ 
 and will be considered separately.] 
 
 The reduction of the syllogisms of the indirect figures into 
 direct or first figure syllogisms is one of the most profitable 
 exercises in formal Logic. The process is not nearly as easy 
 as might appear. To ensure accuracy and rapidity in the 
 process an ingenious mnemonic has been used by logicians for 
 more than 500 years. This mnemonic has been called *' the 
 magic verse of Logic," and certainly the words of which it is- 
 
REDUCTION OF SYLLOGISMS. 75 
 
 composed are more full of meaning than any similar com- 
 bination ever made. The usual form of the mnemonic, which 
 must be learnt by heart, is as follows : — 
 
 Barbara, Celarent, Dari% i^erioque, prions, 
 Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Barolco, secundae, 
 Tertia, Darapti, Disamis, Datisi, Felapton, 
 BoJcardo, Ferison, habet, Quarta insuper addit, 
 Bramamtip, Camenes Dimaris, Fesapo, Fresison. 
 
 [The words in italics are the significant words, the others 
 being only connectives.] 
 
 The following is the key to this famous mnemonic. Every 
 mood in each of the four figures is represented by a different 
 word. In the case of the indirect figures (II., III. and IV.), 
 the mnemonic tells us to what mood of the first figure the 
 various moods of these indirect figures are to be reduced. It 
 gives us, also, full information as to how the reduction is to be 
 performed. 
 
 1. The vowels in each word give the quantity and 
 quality of the syllogism which the word represents. 
 Thus Barba.ra=a syllogism of Figure I., mood AAA. 
 Cesa.re=a syllogism of Figure II., mood E AE. 
 
 2. The initial letters of the words in Figures II., IIL 
 and IV. tell us that a syllogism, represented by a word 
 with that initial letter, may be reduced to the syllogism 
 of the first figure, which is represented by a word having 
 the same initial letter. Thus, the syllogism of the fourth 
 figure, represented by the word Camenes, may be reduced 
 to the syllogism of the first figure, represented by the 
 word Celarent. 
 
 3. The letter " s " occurring in a word performs a double 
 function. If it occurs in the middle of a word as in Cesare 
 it means that, in the process of reduction, the proposition 
 represented by the previous vowel is to be simply con- 
 
\ REDUCTION OF SYLLOGISMS. 
 
 verfced. Thus, in reducing Cesare (Figure II.) to Celarent 
 (Figure I.) the major premiss must be simply converted : — 
 
 TNoPisMl fNoMisP. 
 
 Cesare •] AU S is M I = Celarent -! AH S is M. 
 
 [No S is Pj [NoSisP. 
 
 When "s" occurs at the end of a word, it tells that 
 the conclusion of the new syllogism requires to be con- 
 verted in order to get the conclusion in the form given in 
 the original syllogism. 
 
 4. When the letter " p " occurs in the middle of a word 
 it tells us that in the process of reduction the preceding 
 proposition is to be converted per accidens (limitation). 
 Thus, in reducing Darapti of Figure III. to Darii, Figure I., 
 the minor premiss must be converted " per limitation." 
 
 fAUMisP ] TAUMisP. 
 
 Darapti-! All M is S i-=Darii-<{ Some S is M. 
 
 [ Some S is P J 1 Some S is P. 
 
 When "p" occurs at the end of a word it signifies that 
 the conclusion of the new syllogism must be converted 
 per limitation in order that the new conclusion miay 
 a-ppear in the same form as the conclusion in the original 
 syllogism. 
 
 5. When the letter " m " occurs in a word it tells us 
 that the premisses will require transposition in the process 
 of reduction, i.e., the minor will become the major. Thus, 
 bs reducing Cawiestres (Figure II.) to Celarent (Figure I.) 
 the major and minor premisses exchange places : — 
 
 C AllPisM.*) ftNoMisS. 
 
 Camestres -j No S is M.f \ = Celarent -j ^All P is M. 
 I No S is P. J I No P is S. 
 
 This reduction also illustrates the use of the final "s" 
 in Camestres. For in Celarent we have " No P is S " as 
 the conclusion, and by applying the meaning of the final 
 ^*s," we convert the conclusion and so obtain "No S is 
 
BEDUCTIO AD ABSUBDUM. 77 
 
 P," which is the form of the conclusion in the original 
 Camestres proposition. 
 
 6. There is still the significant letter "k" to be con- 
 sidered. It occurs in Baroko and Bokardo. It will be 
 remembered that the moods A (Figure II.) and A Q 
 (Figure III.) were reserved for exceptional treatment. 
 At the time when these mnemonic lines were constructed, 
 contrapositives were not recognised. In consequence of 
 this, a somewhat roundabout method had to be employed 
 in reducing syllogisms in Baroko and Bokardo. The 
 process is known as Beductio ad Ahsurdum — a process 
 quite familiar to students of Euclid. Suppose an argument 
 in Baroko is proceeding. The two disputants agree about- 
 the premisses A and in Figure II., i.e, : — 
 
 All P is M, 
 
 Some S is not M, 
 but one of the disputants will not accept the conclusion. 
 Some S is not P. How, then, shall we show that the 
 conclusion is the only valid one ? We may say that if 
 the conclusion, "Some S is not P," is incorrect, then its 
 contradictory assertion must be correct, viz., All S is P. 
 We will assume, for the sake of argument, that All S is P. 
 We had previously agreed that All P is M. Combining 
 
 therefore, these two, 
 
 All P is M, 
 All S is P, 
 we draw the conclusion that All S is M. 
 
 But we agreed in our original premisses that Some S 
 is not M. Therefore, the conclusion reached is absurd 
 and impossible. When we convince an opponent in this 
 way, by showing he cannot admit the premisses and deny 
 the conclusion without contradicting himself, we are said 
 to use the Beductio ad Ahsurdum. 
 
 The letter "k," therefore, tells us when this method is 
 to be used. The position of the letter indicates that in 
 
78 EXBBCISEB. 
 
 this process of Beductio ad Ahsurdum, the first step is to 
 omit the premiss preceding it, and substitute in its place 
 the contradictory of the conclusion. We then obtain two 
 premisses in the corresponding mood of Figure I., which 
 yield a conclusion contradicting the premiss omitted. 
 But, since two contradictories cannot both be true, and 
 since the truth of the original minor was granted, we reject 
 ' the new conclusion and infer the truth of the original 
 conclusion. 
 
 It may seem that this method of Reduction has no connection 
 with those methods which converted syllogisms of the indirect 
 figures to corresponding syllogisms in the first figure. The aim is, 
 however, the same. The reason for reducing syllogisms to the first 
 figure is, that the reasoning may be the more clearly seen, and that 
 the conclusion may be vindicated. In the Reductio ad Absurdum 
 the aim is also to vindicate the conclusion, but in a different manner. 
 Although, in the mnemonic lines, this indirect method of vindication 
 is contemplated only in the case of A O O and O A propositions, it 
 can be used in others if desired. 
 
 EXEECISES ON CHAPTER XI. 
 
 1. What is reduction ? Say briefly what purj^ose the ^process is 
 supposed to serve. 
 
 2. Construct an argument in Fresison and reduce it to Figure I. 
 
 3. In what moods and figures are the following syllogisms I 
 Reduce them. 
 
 (a) The nervous fluid will not travel along a tied nerve ; 
 
 Electricity will travel along a tied nerve ; 
 
 Tlierefore electricity is not the nervous fluid. 
 (6) No men are birds ; 
 
 All birds are animals ; 
 
 Therefore some animals are not men. 
 
 4. Vindicate the truth of the following argument in A O by 
 Beductio ad Absurdum. " Some successful persons are not industri- 
 ous thinkers ; for every industrious thinker is educated, but some 
 successful persons are not educated. 
 
CHAPTEB XII. 
 
 Irregular and Compound Syllogisms. 
 
 In ordinary arguments it is seldom necessary, for practical 
 purposes, that both the premisses should be expressly stated. 
 One or other of the premisses is frequently suppressed. The 
 following, for example, is a method of argument often used : — 
 " That man is contemptible, for he is a coward." 
 
 In this case the major premiss, "AU cowards are con- 
 temptible," has been taken for granted. 
 
 An Enthymene is a syllogism imcompletely stated, i.e., one 
 
 of the three propositions forming the syllogism is taken for 
 
 granted, but not expressed. If the major premiss is omitted, 
 
 the enthymene is said to be of the first order ; if the minor 
 
 premiss is omitted, it is said to be of the second order ; and if 
 
 the conclusion is omitted, it is said to be of the tJiird order. 
 
 " That man is unhappy, for he is a miser." {First order.) 
 
 " All misers are imhappy, therefore that man is unhappy.' 
 
 {Second order.) 
 
 " All misers are unhappy, and that man is a miser." 
 
 {Third order.) 
 
 The above are examples of enthymenes of the three orders, 
 
 the full syllogism being 
 
 All misers are unhappy, 
 
 That man is a miser, 
 
 .'. That man is unhappy. 
 
 An Ej^THYJiENE frequently occurs in a very terse form. Thus, 
 " He must be mad to attempt that," is an enthymene. The premisses 
 are " All who attempt that are mad ; He is one who attempts that ; 
 Therefore, he is mad." 
 
80 THB BOBITBS. 
 
 Ifc has been remarked that all our thought consists of a 
 
 chain or net work of premisses and conclusions, each premiss 
 
 being really a conclusion drawn from previous premisses. 
 
 Logic provides a nomenclature for the chains of reasoning of 
 
 which our thought consists. Thus, a Prosyllogism is a syllogism 
 
 the conclusion of which is used as a premiss in a succeeding 
 
 syllogism. An Episyllogism is a syllogism of which one or both 
 
 of the premisses are conclusions from preceding syllogisms. 
 
 The union of a prosyllogism with an episyllogism is called 
 
 a Polysyllo^ism. Thus : — 
 
 j' All M is P. 
 
 Prosyllogism. I All S is M. 
 
 (.-.AH Sis P. \ 
 
 But All X is S. [Episyllogism.* 
 
 .-. AUXisPj 
 
 An Epicheirema is a polysyllogism in which the prosyllogism 
 
 is only briefly stated, after the manner of an enthymene. 
 
 Thus :— 
 
 AU S is P, because it is M, 
 
 AU X is S. 
 
 .•. AU X is P. 
 
 A Sorites is a series of propositions, inferentially connected, 
 
 in which the predicate of each is the subject of the next, and 
 
 so on indefinitely. The conclusion is formed of the first 
 
 subject and the last predicate. Thus : — All A is B, All B is 0, 
 
 All C is D, All D is E ; therefore. All A is E. 
 
 In a Sorites there are really as many syllogisms as there 
 
 are intermediate propositions between the first premiss and 
 
 the conclusion. The example just given may be exhibited as 
 
 the combination of three simple syllogisms. Thus : — 
 
 All A is B. All A is C. All A is D. 
 
 AU B is C. AU C is D. AU D is E. 
 
 .-.AUAisC. /.AUAisD. .-.AUAisE. 
 
 • Of course, the chain may be continued indefinitely 
 
EXEBCISE8. 81 
 
 In political speeches the Sorites is a frequent mode of argument. 
 Take the following extract : "Free-trade is a great boon to the 
 working man, for it increases trade and thus cheapens articles of 
 ordinary consumption; this gives a greater purchasing power to 
 money, which is equivalent to a rise in real wages ; and any rise in 
 real wages is a boon to the working man." This can be exhibited as 
 a Sorites, but, of course, each of its general propositions must first be 
 expressed in precise logical form. The passage will then be found to 
 consist of the following propositions, joined together after the manner 
 of a Sorites :— Free-trade is trade-increasing ; every increase of trade 
 is price-lowering ; every fall in prices is money-value-raising ; every 
 rise of money-value is real-wage-raising; every rise in real wages is 
 advantageous to working men ; therefore, free-trade is advantageoiu 
 to working-men. 
 
 There are two special rules of the valid Sorites : — 
 
 1. Only one premiss may be negative ; and, if one 
 premiss is negative, it must be the last one. 
 
 2. Only one premiss may be particular; and, if one 
 premiss is particular, it must be the first one. 
 
 In the following argument in the form of a Sorites, there is 
 a breach of the second rule, and consequently an invalid 
 inference. " All thieves are dishonest ; all dishonest persons 
 are immoral ; and some immoral persons go unpunished ; 
 therefore, some thieves go unpunished." 
 
 EXEKCISES ON CHAPTER XH. 
 
 /. What kind of argument is the following : — 
 
 " Those who have shall not receive ; those who do not receiv§ de 
 not want." Is the argument valid ? 
 
 9. Define Prosyllogism and Episyllogism ; and say of what gema 
 of reasoning they are species. * 
 
 3. Construct a valid Sorites argument with a negative premitM. 
 
CHAPTEE xrn. 
 
 Conditional Syllogisms. 
 
 In all the various kinds of argTiment that have so far been 
 considered, the propositions employed have been categorical or 
 unconditional. But in many of the concrete reasonings of our 
 ordinary intellectual life, we are obliged to use general state- 
 ments, to which some condition is attached. In some connec- 
 tion or other we are constantly using conjunctions, such as 
 "if," "either," "whenever," etc., and this frequent use 
 testifies to the number of conditional propositions and argu- 
 ments in daily use. When a statement to which a condition 
 is attached enters into an argument, the reasoning seems to 
 turn on the condition. Hence, an amount of complexity is 
 introduced into the argument. Logic recognises the fact that 
 conditional arguments must have a place in our inferential 
 thought, and exhibits the inner relation of such by the forms 
 of conditional syllogism. 
 
 A Conditional Syllogism is one in which the major premiss, 
 and that only, is a conditional proposition, and in which, 
 accordingly, the reasoning seems to turn on the condition. We 
 shall notice three forms of the conditional syllogism, viz., (I.) 
 the Conjunctive (or Hypothetical), (II.) the Disjunctive 
 (or Alternative), and (III.) the Dilemma. 
 
CONJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISMS. 88 
 
 I. The Conjanctive or Hypothetical Syllogism. — ^ 
 If A is B, C is D. 
 
 AisB. 
 .-. C is D. 
 
 If A is B, C is D. 
 
 C is not D. 
 ••• A is not B. - 
 
 Modus jponena. 
 
 ModAia tollens. 
 
 The first proposition in these examples is a complex 
 proposition formed of two propositions, related in such a way 
 that the truth of the one follows necessarily from the truth of 
 the other. When two propositions are related in this manner, 
 they are technically known as *' the Antecedent " and " the 
 Consequent." 
 
 When two propositions are related as antecedent and 
 consequent, the truth of the consequent foUows from the truth 
 of the antecedent ; whilst the denial of the consequent is 
 virtually the denial of the antecedent. This is known as the 
 Law of Antecedent and Consequent. 
 
 From the statement of this law we may deduce two most 
 
 IMPORTANT COROLLARIES, viz. : — 
 
 1. The affirmation of the consequent does not justify 
 the affirmation of the antecedent. Granted that If A is 
 B, C is D, we may not argue that because C is D, therefore 
 AisB. 
 
 2. The denial of the antecedent does not justify the 
 denial of the consequent. Granted that If A is B, C is D, 
 we may not argue that because A is not B, therefore 
 C is not D. 
 
 Applying these observations to the hypothetical proposi- 
 tion, "If rain has fallen, the grass is wet," consider what 
 inference could be drawn (a) from the affirmation of the 
 ajitecedent, (b) from the affirmation of the consequent, (c) from 
 
84 DISJUNCTIVE SYEiLOGISMS. 
 
 the denial of the antecedent, (d) from the denial of the 
 consequent. 
 
 (a) Affirmation of the antecedent, " Kain has fallen," 
 yields a valid conclusion, " The grass is wet." 
 
 (6) Affirmation of the consequent, "The grass is wet," 
 yields no conclusion. 
 
 Corollary (1) forbids us to conclude, *' Kain has fallen.'* 
 (c) Denial of antecedent, " Kain has not fallen," yields 
 no conclusion. 
 
 Corollary (2) forbids us to conclude, "The grass is not 
 wet." 
 (<Z) Denial of the consequent, " The grass is not wet,'* 
 yields a valid conclusion, " Kain has not fallen." 
 
 II. The DisjunctiYe Syllogism is one in which the major 
 premiss, and that only, is a disjunctive proposition. 
 
 A is either B or 0. 
 
 A is not B. 
 
 .-. A is C. 
 
 The principle which governs the reasoning here is that of 
 the excluded middle. If we can assume that the disjunctive 
 in the reasoning is exhaustive, i.e., A is either B or C and 
 cannot be anything else, then we may vary the general form 
 of the disjunctive syllogism, thus : — 
 
 A is either B or 0. 
 
 AisB. 
 
 .'. A is not C. 
 
 Bat great care must be taken in concrete reasoning that the assnmp^ 
 Hon here involved is warranted. Consider the following example : — 
 Either the witness tells a lie or the prisoner is guilty. 
 The witness tells a lie. 
 .". The prisoner is not guilty. 
 This is not a valid argument, for the disjunction in the major premiss 
 Is not exhaustive. For there are other alternatives— the witness may 
 tell a lie, and the prisoner be guilty all the same. 
 
THE DILEMMA. 85 
 
 III. The Dilemma. — The dilemma is a mode of reasoning 
 designed to show the absurdity of the logical position of an 
 opponent. It is a syllogism which has for its major premiss 
 a hypothetical conjxmctive proposition having more than one 
 antecedent. For its minor premiss it has a disjunctive pro- 
 position. It thus offers an opponent a choice of alternatives, 
 and the choice of either alternative leads to a conclusion which 
 the opponent does not like. The dilemma is expressed in 
 three principal forms : (1) Simple constructive, (2) Complex 
 CONSTRUCTIVB, (3) Dbstuctivb ; of which forms the following 
 are examples : — 
 
 1, Simple Constructive : — 
 
 If A is B, or if E is F, then C is D. 
 But either A is B or E is F : 
 Therefore C is D. 
 
 As a concrete example we may imagine the inhabitants 
 of a town, against which a hostil e army is approaching, 
 arguing as follows : — " If we are bombarded we shall 
 suffer loss, and if we surrender we shall suffer loss : but 
 we must either surrender or be bombarded ; therefore, in 
 any case, we shall suffer loss." 
 
 2. Complex Constructive. — 
 
 If A is B, C is D ; and, if E is F, G is H. 
 But either A is B or E is F : 
 Therefore, C is D or G is H. 
 
 A man in an upper room of a burning house, when 
 the staircase has been destroyed, might use this form of 
 argument in reasoning: " If I jump through the window 
 I shall break my neck ; if I remain here I shall be burnt 
 to death ; but I must do one or the other ; therefore, in 
 «ither case I must die. 
 
 OF THE ^'^\ 
 
 UNIVERSITY / 
 
 OF /^, 
 
86 THE DILEMMA. 
 
 8. Destructive Dilemma. — This dilemma in it& 
 commoner forms proceeds upon the denial of the conse- 
 quent, as involving the denial of the antecedent. In the 
 major proposition we obtain the admission that, if a 
 certain thing holds good, it must be followed by one or 
 other consequence. In the minor proposition we show 
 that neither of these consequences follows, and so conclude 
 that the antecedent is false, e.g. : — 
 
 If A is B, either C is D or E is F. 
 
 But neither C is D nor E is F : 
 
 Therefore, A is not B. 
 
 The dilemma has been known from time immemorial as 
 the "homed syllogism," because in the major proposition 
 the alternatives assn/med * to be exhaustive are opposed like 
 '•horns" to the opponent's position. The opponent's assertion 
 is, in the minor proposition, thrown off each "horn," and 
 finally rejected in the conclusion. 
 
 • The student should notice the expression " assumed to be exhaustive." 
 Dilemmatic arguments are often fallacious because all possible alterna- 
 tives have not been exhausted. The fallacy in this is exposed by the 
 construction of another dilemma equally to the point, but which gives 
 an opposite conclusion. This method is called " rebutting a dilemma." 
 Thus the complex constructive dilemma as given above might be 
 rebutted thus :— 
 
 If A is B then C is not D or if E is P then G is not H. 
 
 But either A is B or E is P. 
 Therefore either C is not D or G is not H. 
 
 Compare this with the following dilemma and its corresponding 
 rebutting dilemma. A mother is advising her son not to enter public 
 life and argues thus:— "If you act justly men will hate you, if you act 
 unjustly the Gods will hate you; but you must either act justly or 
 unjustly ; therefore public life must lead to your being hated." The sod 
 replies by a rebutting dilemma :— " If I act justly the Gods will love me. 
 and if I act unjustly men will love me ; therefore in either case I shall b» 
 beloved." 
 
EXBBCI8EB. 
 
 EXERCISES ON CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 1. Assuming the truth of the statement tlmt, (a) if Ais B, C is D, 
 say what inference, if any, can he drawn from each of the following 
 further statements : (6) hut A is B ; (c) hut A is not B ; {d) hut C is 
 D ; {e) hut C is not D. If, in any of tlie cases, no inference can he 
 drawn, give the reasons. Illustrate your answer hy examples. 
 
 2. What is meant hy a disjunctive syllogism, and what conclusion 
 does such a syllogism yield ? 
 
 3. Express the following in the form of a dilemma : — Examhia- 
 tions are either needless or useless : for, if students are industrious, 
 they are needless ; and, if students are idle, they are useless. 
 
 4. Show that denying the antecedent or granting the consequent of 
 a condition involves logical fault, if tlie argument he expressed in 
 syllogistic form. 
 
 5. Examine the following dictum of the Caliph Omar, addressed 
 to the custodians of the Alexandrian Library in 640 A.D. : — 
 
 ^* If your hooks are in conformity with the Koran, they are 
 superfluous ; if they are at variance with it they are pernicious. 
 But, they must either be in conformity with the Koran, or at 
 variance with it. Therefore, they are either superfluous or 
 pernicious." 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 Fallacies of Deduction. 
 
 Thb study of logical forms, besides being a useful mental 
 discipline, supplies a ready test for the detection of fallacies. 
 Indeed, formal logic may be said to exist as a practical study 
 for this purpose. The syllogistic forms may be regarded 
 as a framework in which all our concrete reasonings may be 
 unfolded or displayed, and one by which their weak points 
 may be more readily discovered. 
 
 A Fallacy is a pcasoning apparently correct, which, neYer- 
 theless, InYolYes inconsistency in inferential thought. The 
 conclusion appears to follow from the premisses, but in reality 
 it does not. We do not class palpable, downright blunders as 
 fallacies. A fallacy is an error so wrapped up in words that 
 the mistake is not at once perceived, and thus tends to produce 
 conviction. Hence, the work of defining and exempHfying the 
 different kinds of fallacies is in one respect the chief end of 
 the science. But fallacious reasoning is so diverse that it is 
 impossible to exemplify every variety of it. Nor is it possible, 
 sometimes, to decide to what class a given fallacy ought to 
 be referred. For fallacies, like consistent reasonings, are mostly 
 expressed elliptically, and it is not always clear what the 
 xmabridged reasoning is supposed to be. Thus, when a person 
 argues ** that a country is ill-governed, because misery prevails 
 there," the unabridged syllogism may take two different forms 
 
nTTBHNAL FALLACIES. 89 
 
 ' neither of which is correct. (1) It may have for its omitted 
 premiss, " All miserable comitries are ill-governed," which no 
 reasonable opponent would admit ; or, (2) the omitted premiss 
 maybe " Every ill-governed comitry is miserable," in which 
 case the conclusion is invalid, for the middle term has not been 
 distributed in either premiss. Again we do not consider wilful 
 attempts to deceive as fallacies. To such attempts we apply 
 a stronger term. When people who know the truth but 
 suppress it by suggesting a wrong explanation {suppressio veri 
 et suggestio falsi) ^ this is moral not logical error. In short, 
 a dishonest intention will evade all rules of Logic. 
 
 Ordinary common sense is competent to expose most 
 fallacious reasonings by its own sagacity. But it not infre- 
 quently happens that common sense is aware of a fallacy in 
 the course of argumentation, without being able to say exactly 
 what is wrong. Arguments are felt to be wrong, but those 
 unskilled in logical science are puzzled how to demonstrate the 
 error or how to refute the fallacy. Logic suppHes the needful 
 help to enable students to localise and expose the error. It 
 makes the student familiar with the common form of unsound 
 inference. It keeps the attention fixed on the essential steps 
 of all valid reasoning. It accustoms the student to mark 
 accurately the exact meaning of terms used, and the relation 
 of these terms to one another. And it shows the necessity of 
 defining with precision the question in dispute. After a course 
 of discipline like this, the mind forms a spontaneous habit of 
 accurate judgment and self- consistent thought and reasoning. 
 Fallacies are usually divided into two classes : — 
 1. Internal Fallacies, where the unsound element appears 
 in the mode of expression. These are called fallacies ''in 
 dictione." 
 
 All internal fallacies may be detected even by those who are ignorant 
 of the matter to which the reasoning relates. 
 
90 INTERNAL FALLACIES. 
 
 Internal fallacies are subdivided into 
 
 (i.) Purely formal fallacies, which are a breach of one or other 
 of the rules of Logic. 
 
 (ii.) Yerbal fallacies, in which the error lies in some ambiguity 
 in the words used. 
 
 (i.) Purely formal fallacies are breaches of one or other of the 
 rules governing mediate and immediate inference. All 
 that is needed here is to remind the student of the 
 most obvious pitfalls, viz. : — 
 (a) Confusion of contradictory with contrary opposition of 
 
 propositions. 
 {b) Simple conversion of A propositions. 
 
 (c) Syllogisms with an undistributed middle. 
 
 (d) Illicit process of the major or minor (see page 65). 
 
 (e) Arguing from two negative or two particular premisses. 
 (/) Neglect of the rules governing conditional syllogisms. 
 
 (ii.) Yerbal fallacies. These are often mere quibbles. The 
 following are the chief varieties of verbal fallacies : — 
 
 (a) Ambiguity of a word {equivocation), — A word is 
 sometimes used in a different sense in the two proposi- 
 tions of a syllogism in which it occurs, e.g., " Light is 
 always cheering ; some afflictions are light ; therefore some 
 afflictions are cheering." Obviously, the middle term 
 " light " is used in a double sense, and there are four terms 
 used instead of three. 
 
 (6) Ambiguity in the grammatical structure of a 
 sentence ( amphibology) , e.g., ** Twice two and three." This 
 is ambiguous, for the answer may be either seven or ten. 
 " What he was beaten with was what I saw him beaten 
 with. I saw him beaten with my eye. Therefore he 
 was beaten with my eye." 
 
 (c) Composition. This is the confusion of a universaJ 
 with a collective term. When we assert something of 
 
EXTERNAL FALLACIES. 91 
 
 each and every member of a class, we may infer the same 
 of the whole class. When we say that all the angles of a 
 triangle are less than two right-angles, we use the word 
 "all" distributively ; but, when "all" is used collectively 
 the sentence is incorrect. We could not say that " all the 
 angles of a triangle taken together are less than two right- 
 angles. 
 
 {d) Division. This fallacy is the converse of the fallacy 
 of composition. What is said collectively may not be said 
 of the various individuals included in the collective term. 
 All the angles of a triangle taken together, are equal to two 
 right-angles, but no individual angle of a triangle is equal 
 to two right-angles. 
 
 (e) Fallacy of accent. This arises from the accent or 
 
 emphasis being thrown on the wrong word in a sentence, 
 
 e.g., "And he said ' saddle me the ass ' ; and they saddled 
 
 7iiw." 
 
 2. External Fallacies. — The error here can only be 
 
 recognised by those who are conversant with the matter about 
 
 which the statement is made. These are said to be fallacies 
 
 " extra dictionem.'* It is not easy to give simple examples of 
 
 them. When the wrongful argument is stated in simple 
 
 language, the error is easily seen. But, when the error is 
 
 diluted over a speech of an hour's length, it is more difficult to 
 
 detect it. The following are the chief varieties of external 
 
 fallacies : — 
 
 i. Many Questions (plurium interrogationum). This fallacy 
 is committed when several questions are so combined 
 into one, that, if you answer "yes" or " no," you are 
 committed to something more than your real meaning. A 
 man asks : " Have you ceased ill using your mother ? " 
 You would not care to answer " yes " or " no." Some, 
 times in a court of law, questions of this kind are asked, 
 and a plain answer "yes" or "no" demanded. Such 
 
92 EXTBBNAL FALLACIES. 
 
 questions should be at once broken up into their several 
 parts and each part answered singly. 
 
 ii. Fallacy of the Consequent, better known by the familiar 
 phrase "now sequitur." This is the general name 
 given to loose and pretended arguments, where there is no 
 connection between the premisses and the conclusion. 
 
 iii. The Fallacy of Accident {A dicto simpUciter ad dictmn 
 secundum quid) is committed when we argue from a 
 particular case. Thus, " To take interest upon a loan is 
 just, therefore I do right to exact it from my own father 
 in distress." The answer obviously is, " Circumstances 
 alter cases." The converse of this fallacy is called " A 
 dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.'^ In this 
 case a statement is made in a certain sense, and then used 
 in quite another. Thus, " I eat to-day what I bought 
 yesterday. I bought raw meat yesterday, therefore raw 
 meat is eaten to-day." Here the accidental quaHfication 
 of "rawness" is added, whereas in the original premise the 
 assertion is made without regard to any such accidental 
 qualification. 
 
 iv. The Fallacy of False Cause {j^ost Jioc, propter hoc), where 
 it is assumed that because one event follows another, 
 the former event is the cause of the later. This is a purely 
 inductive fallacy, and will be considered later. 
 
 V. IrreleYant Conclusion {ignoratio elenchi). This is a 
 most important type of deductive fallacy. The name 
 covers all those cases in which a conclusion is proved, which 
 is really not the point in dispute, but which sufficiently 
 resembles what was required to be proved, to be often 
 mistaken for it. Scarcely any fallacy is so common or so 
 dangerous as this. Arguing beside the point, distracting 
 attention by irrelevant considerations, is as frequent as it 
 is misleading. The incoherence of the ignoratio elenchi 
 lies between the conclusion offered and the proper answer 
 
EXTBBNAL FALLACIES. 38 
 
 to the question, but involves no breach of the rules of the 
 syllogism. There are four varieties of this fallacy which 
 should be noticed. 
 
 (a) The argumentum ad hominem. This is confusion a» 
 to what the point at issue really is. Thus, if a new law is 
 proposed, it is no proper argument to urge that the pro- 
 poser is not the right person to bring the question forward. 
 When we have advice given to us, it is not logic to retort 
 that the preacher should practise what he preaches. If a 
 man is accused of a crime, it is not relevant to assert that 
 the accuser is just as bad. In all such cases, the argument 
 proceeds not upon the merits of the case, but upon the 
 character of the persons engaged in it. 
 
 (6) Fallacies of objections. — We commit this fallacy 
 when we argue that a proposal should be rejected because 
 it is open to objections. Such an argument is always a 
 fallacy, if the alternative can be shown to be open to 
 greater objections or difficulties. 
 
 (c) Argumentum, ad verecvm^diam. — This is an appeal to 
 our respect for ancient or established authority. The 
 fallacy lies in the as'sumption that whatever is old or well- 
 established must ipso facto be good. 
 
 {d) The argwnent in support of a change is the opposite 
 of (c). The fallacy here is the implication that all change 
 is progress, whereas the contemplated change may 
 occasion more or greater evils than would follow if no 
 change were made. 
 
 The Surreptitious Assumption {PetiUo principii). — ^Every 
 example of deductive reasoning starts from some general 
 principle (major premiss) about which the disputants are 
 assumed to be agreed. If one disputant adopts as hig 
 premiss a statement which the other disputant does not 
 accept, the question at issue remains unsettled and no 
 conclusion can be drawn between them. " Begging the 
 
94 THE DETECTION OF PAIiLACIBS. 
 
 question" and " arguing in a circle " are familiar forms of 
 the petitio princvpii. He who argues in a circle assumes 
 the truth of his major premiss and by means of it reaches 
 a conclusion, which he afterwards uses to establish the 
 major premiss with which he started. Thus, an illogical 
 divine might argue : " We know that there is a God, 
 because the Bible tells us so ; and we know that the Bible 
 is true, because it is the Word of God." People are 
 especially liable to fall into this fallacy when they use a 
 mixture of EngUsh and classical words in the same 
 reasoning. For they often seem to be proving one question 
 by another which is identical with it, only expressed in 
 words derived from another language ; e.g. : — 
 
 " Consciousness is the immediate knowledge of an object; for I 
 cannot be said to know a thing unless my mind has been affected by 
 the thing itself." 
 
 The detection of fallacies is such an important branch 
 of logical study that a few typical fallacies are appended, 
 with hints as to their solution. 
 
 1. Examine the folloiving : — " Every bird comes from cm 
 egg ; every egg comes from a bird ; therefore, every egg comes 
 from an egg.'' 
 
 The premisses written in logical form are : " Every bird 
 is an egg-product; every egg is a bird-product," i.e., there 
 are four terms, whereas a correct syllogism can have 
 only three. 
 
 For exercise, test the following in the manner above 
 indicated: "Knowledge is power; consequently, since 
 power is desirable, knowledge is desirable." 
 
 2. Is the following a valid argument ? — " To assault another 
 is wrong ; consequently , a soldier who assaults o/nother does 
 wrong.'' 
 
THE DETECTION OP FALLACIES. 96 
 
 This is the fallacy of accidents. A soldier is a man 
 with an accidental qualification, and we cannot argue from 
 a general to a special in such a case. 
 
 Examine in the same way: " Intoxicants act as a poison 
 to a drunkard, and everyone should avoid poison." 
 
 3. ExcMmne the following : — " He who is most hv/ngry eats 
 ■most ; he who eats least is most hungry ; therefore, he who 
 eats least eats most.'' 
 
 This is the fallacy of accidents ; " eats most " is taken 
 generally in the conclusion, but specifically in the premiss. 
 
 4. Examine: — '■'■If Jack is a good boy he will do as he is 
 told; he is a good hoy {for, if he will do as he is told, he is a 
 good boy) ; therefore, he will do as he is told.'' 
 
 A petitio principii — arguing in a circle. 
 
 5. Examine : — " The sea was the place where the incidents 
 of my tale happened; there is the sea; therefore, my story 
 is true.'' 
 
 An ignoratio elenchi. 
 
 6. Examine: — "J[ dog chases a tortoise : the tortoise has a 
 hundred yards start, but the dog runs ten yards to every one 
 run by the tortoise. When the dog has run a hundred yards 
 the tortoise will he ten yards ahead; when the dog has 
 covered these ten yards, the tortoise will be one yard ahead; 
 when the dog has covered this one yard, the tortoise will be 
 ^th of a yard ahead, and so on. The tortoise will be 
 always ahead and the dog will never overtake it." 
 
 This is an ancient specimen of an ignoratio elenchi. 
 The argument pretends to prove that the dog will never 
 overtake the tortoise ; it really proves that the dog passes 
 the tortoise between the 111th and 112th yards. 
 
 7. Examine : — " If I am to pass this examination I shall 
 pass it, whether I amswer correctly or not ; if I am not to pass 
 it, I shall fail whether I a/nswer correctly or not ; therefore, it 
 does not matter how I answer the questions." 
 
96 EZEBCISISS. 
 
 Here it is tacitly assumed that "whether I answer 
 correctly or not " is not a link in the fated chain of events. 
 It is assumed that fate does not work through correct 
 answering of questions, and the conclusion is merely a 
 repetition of this assumption. It is the venera,tion of 
 "Fate" that draws away our attention from the error of 
 this delightful petitio principii. 
 
 EXEKCISES ON CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 1. Describe any three fallacies in Logic, giving an example in 
 each case. 
 
 2. Point out some of the ordinary forms of fallacy employed to 
 mislead in argument or in oratory, and illustrate the forms named. 
 
 3. Ea^lain and illustrate the terms " redv/itio ad absurdum" and 
 " begging the question." 
 
 4. Examine the following : 
 
 (a) You are not what I am; I am a man : therefore you are 
 
 not a man. 
 
 (b) A fish is a cold-blooded animal and breathes by gills ; 
 
 neither of these things is true of a whale ; therefore, it is 
 not a fish. 
 
 5. Explain exactly the nature of the fallacies called ''accident,*' 
 •• argumentum ad hominem,*' and " argum^ntum ad verecundiam.** 
 
 6. Show liow a logical training enables a student to detect 
 fallacies. 
 
 7. Explain and illustrate by examples the following terms : — 
 Ambiguity ; fallacy ; premiss ; suppressio veri et surgestio falsi. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Inductive Logic. 
 
 The fundamental lesson of Deductive Logic has been that no 
 conclusion may ever contain more than was contained in the 
 premisses from which it was drawn. Particular premisses, wl 
 saw, could not yield a general conclusion. The definition of 
 Inductive Logic, therefore, will seem at the outset a paradox. 
 For Inductive Logic may be defined as the Inference from 
 particulars to the general, or from the known to the unknown. 
 It is the establishing of general laws or principles from 
 observed particular facts or instances. John, Thomas, etc., 
 individual men, are mortal, from which the general inference 
 is drawn that " All men are mortal." Here we have a 
 general conclusion about all men, derived from an indefinite 
 number of particular instances. At first it seems as if 
 our conclusion was overdrawn. The conclusion contains 
 more than is given in the premisses; it seems like a 
 leap in the dark. Modern science consists throughout of such 
 general conclusions, based on particular facts. Because certain 
 things resemble each other in certain observed ways, we assume 
 that they will resemble each other in certain previously un- 
 observed ways. But is this general assumption warranted ? Do 
 any number of observed facts warrant a general universal 
 conclusion. If the observed facts be two, or two hundred 
 particular cases, are we warranted in making any assertion 
 beyond the number observed ? What right have we to add to 
 
98 INDUCTION. 
 
 what we actually observe, as we certainly do, whenever we 
 conclude, from seeing a number of particular events occur, 
 that they will always occur ? We say *' all animals die," but 
 we have not seen all animals die. Similarly, *' all bodies 
 gravitate," but our experience does not extend beyond 
 particular instances of gravitation. Yet we are certain that 
 these inferences are legitimate. What, then, is the ground of 
 this certainty? Why are we able to conclude that '* All must 
 be so-and-so," because we have observed that " Some are so- 
 and-so *• ; that " all " bodies gravitate because " some " have been 
 observed to gravitate ? This is the problem of induction. For, 
 we must observe that this process of induction is attended with 
 some perplexity. In some cases one single observation is 
 enough to warrant a general conclusion, whilst in other cases 
 we hesitate to draw a general conclusion from hundreds of 
 observed instances. Euclid takes a single triangle and shows 
 that its three angles are together equal to two right-angles. 
 We therefore accept this as a general truth applying to 
 triangles of every kind and everywhere. One single instance is 
 sufficient to establish a general rule. On the other hand, 
 though every crow I have seen is a black one, I should have no 
 hesitation in believing someone who told me that he had seen 
 a grey one. Whence come the certainty in the one case and 
 the uncertainty in the other. 
 
 Induction is based upon one great axiom, viz. : " the 
 COURSE OF NATURE IS UNIFORM." In othcr words nature is not 
 a chaos, it is an orderly system. Any event does not follow 
 any other event in a haphazard way. The relation of things to 
 each other is governed by what we call " law." This truth is 
 axiomatic in its nature. It is the assumption of all Induction 
 and of all science. It is not a truth which we can prove, nor 
 does it need proof. If any one cares to deny it, we can offer no 
 demonstration of it, beyond showing the denier that he himsell 
 acts upon the assumption every hour of the day. 
 
CAUSE AND EFFBCT. 99 
 
 This axiom is practically the assertion that things are related 
 to each other by law, and the one general law, everywhere 
 observable, is that of cause and effect. The truth, that every 
 fact which has a beginning has its cause, is a truth coextensive 
 with human experience. It is needful, then, to have a definite 
 notion of what is meant by cause. "We may define it as 
 follows : — 
 
 A cause is that which immediately precedes any ohanob, 
 
 AND WHICH, existing AT ANY TIME AND IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES 
 HAS BEEN ALWAYS AND WILL BE ALWAYS FOLLOWED BY A SIMILAR 
 CHANGE. 
 
 In this sense of the word cause is synonymous with power, 
 property, or quaHty. Thus : " Water has the power, property, 
 or quality of melting salt " is the equivalent of " Water is the 
 cause of the melting of salt." Each statement means that 
 when water is poured upon salt, the solid is transformed into 
 liquid. Two parts of a sequence are thus before our minds (a) 
 the addition of water to salt, (6) the transformation of a 
 crystalline solid into a liquid. These are respectively cause 
 and efifect. The powers, properties, qualities, or causes of 
 things are not to be regarded as anything superadded to the 
 thing. These are not the things plus their powers, but things 
 alone. Things are the invariable antecedents of changes in 
 similar circumstances. The changes occur in an order or with 
 a uniformity, which we believe to be regular. It is this general 
 fact which enables us to reason about nature and to draw 
 general inferences. If the changes which we see continually 
 happening were chaotic, without uniformity, there could be no 
 reasoning about them, either inductive or deductive. Now, in 
 our actual experience, causal connections are mixed up with 
 casual or merely accidental coincidences. Even the un- 
 scientific man remarks that some sequences repeat themselves, 
 whilst others do not. He watches the sequences and the 
 coincidences happening within his range of observation. He 
 
100 CAUSE AND EFFECT. 
 
 makes experiments. In this way he comes, ere long, to 
 separate causal or constant sequences from those which are 
 only casual and occasional. There are many practical 
 difficulties to be overcome, arising from the fact that 
 the same effect may be produced from several causes, 
 and that effects are often produced partly from one cause 
 ajid partly from another. Gradually, he learns the efficacy 
 of experiment for helping him over these difficulties. 
 Conjectures and hypotheses suggest further experiments. 
 "Vary the circumstances," is a rule which comniends 
 itself more and more as he proceeds. Thus he puts aside 
 immaterial circumstances which he finds to be casually and not 
 causally connected with the phenomena he is investigating. 
 Gradually, these casual antecedents and consequents drop off, 
 and the true causal antecedents and consequents reveal them- 
 selves. Then, at last, the enquirer has discovered truth. He 
 is no longer an enquirer or conjecturer, but he may claim to 
 have established a general law or a scientific induction. The 
 various methods which this sketch has suggested and which 
 are exemplified in the various sciences, are known as the 
 Canons or Eules of Valid Induction. Before these are examined 
 in detail, it is needful to consider in detail some of those pro- 
 cesses which are preliminary to induction, such as observation, 
 experiment and conjecture. 
 
 {For general exercises on Fart II see Page 111.) 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 Ihe Preliminaries to Induction. 
 
 OBSERVATION, EXPERIMENT, CONJECTURE. 
 
 (Hypothesis.) 
 
 In the closing sentences of the preceding chapter we have 
 assumed a distinction between observation and experiment. 
 Observations in the wide sense of the term are either simple or 
 artificial, i.e.j they are conducted either with or without 
 interference on the part of the observer. In simple observa- 
 tion the facts are taken just as they offer themselves. In 
 artificial observation or experiment the spontaneous state or 
 occurrence of things is modified by the observer's will. The 
 phenomena to be observed, the effects and causes which are 
 to be investigated, are put in such new circumstances as 
 are most suitable for the detection of their causes and effects. 
 
 In OBSERVATION PROPER, wc watcTi nature's experiments; 
 in EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATION wc interfere with nature's 
 experiments, in order to make others of our own. 
 
 Experimental observation is obviously a powerful auxiliary 
 in the search for causes and effects in nature. It is simply the 
 outcome of the old rule, " vary the circumstances," i.e., vary 
 Bhe circumstances which surround the object whose causes or 
 effects you wish to ascertain. Each fresh experimental 
 
102 HYPOTHESIS. 
 
 variation is a new opportunity for getting rid of the casual 
 or companion circumstances, and for recognising the really 
 constant or causal ones. Contrasting observation and experi- 
 ment, the latter seems by far the more potent instrument. 
 But certain things must be borne in mind. When we are 
 endeavouring to ascertain what the effects of a given cause 
 are, we may use experiment as freely as we choose. But, in 
 tl^e reverse process, i.e., in ascertaining what is the cause of 
 a given effect, experiment is not always a safe guide. We 
 may take any given cause and see what effect it will produce, 
 but we cannot always take an effect and try experimentally 
 what will produce that effect. If we do so, we can only 
 conclude that what we discover is one way of producing the 
 effect out of many possible ways. So, too, in some cases we 
 are shut out from experimental methods. In many applications 
 of the science of medicine we have to rely upon observation 
 entirely. 
 
 Conjecture or Hypothesis. — This is an important auxiliary 
 in the search for the causes and effects of things. An hypo- 
 thesis is a provisional supposition about the true relation of 
 things. But we may not suggest hypotheses at random. 
 There are certain reasonable conditions to which hypotheses 
 must conform in order to be entitled to rank even as con- 
 ditional explanations. An hypothesis is in itself a provisional 
 conjecture, insufficiently supported by evidence. It is legiti- 
 mately made in order that we may compare with the actual 
 facts of the case, what would be the facts if it were well- 
 foxmded; and, in proportion as it yields a reasonable result 
 or the contrary, we may accept or reject it. 
 
 A dogmatic hypothesis is a conjecture not sufficiently 
 supported by evidence, which we are asked to receive as an 
 estabhshed truth. A suggested hypothesis is a provisional 
 conjecture not sufficiently supported by evidence, which we 
 are asked to try or test by means of the evidence. 
 
HYPOTHESIS. 103 
 
 The conditions of a legitimate hypothesis are : — 
 
 1. It must not be abready known to be, or even strongly 
 suspected of being, untrue. 
 
 2. It must be of a nature to admit of proof or disproof, 
 for verification. 
 
 3. It must be adequate to explain aU the phenomena of 
 which it is offered as the explanation. 
 
 Hypotheses cannot be regarded as established general 
 truths about nature, until they have conformed to tae require- 
 ments of one or other of the Inductive Canong. 
 
CHAPTEE XVII. 
 
 The Inductive Canons. 
 
 Thb general rules or conditions of successful search for causes 
 and effects are the essence of Inductive Logic. They are to 
 this branch of the subject what the syllogism is to Deductive 
 Logic. They were first laid down in Bacon's Novum Orga/num. 
 For the purposes of this elementary treatise it will be sufficient 
 if we discuss the two fundamental canons known as (1) the 
 Method of Agreement and (2) the Method of Difference. 
 
 1. The Canon op Method of Agreement. — "When all 
 the antecedents of an effect except one can be absent 
 without the disappearance of the effect, that one is causally 
 connected with the effect, due precautions having been 
 taken that no other circumstances have been present 
 besides those taken account of." 
 
 The principle involved here is obvious. Whatever can be 
 excluded from a sequence without affecting the phenomenon 
 whose causes or effects we wish to ascertain, cannot be causally 
 connected with it. Let a, b, c, d, e and / be circumstances 
 observed on some particular occasion to attend some event 
 which we will call x. We wish to find the cause of x. And, 
 to do this, we must ascertain whether any of the given 
 circumstances, a, b, c, etc., aje causally connected with x. To 
 settle this point we watch the occurrence of the phenomenon x 
 again and again in a well selected variety of circumstances. 
 In the first case we noticed that a, 6, c, d, e and / were all 
 
CANON OF AGREEMENT. 106 
 
 present. In the next case, perhaps, a was absent but all the 
 rest were present. In another case h was absent but all 
 the rest were present, and so on. But after many variations 
 of the circumstances in all of which x occiirs, we may find 
 that one, say /, is a never-failing antecedent. All or any of 
 the others may be absent, but whenever x is observed we find 
 /, and / seems the only material circumstance. Hence we 
 conclude that / is causally, and not merely casually, connected 
 with X. whose cause we were seeking. Let us illustrate this 
 by a concrete example : There has been an outburst of 
 typhoid fever, and we wish to ascertain its cause. We take 
 as many cases of the occurrence of the fever as possible. We 
 notice the following points : — 
 
 {a) The cases occurred in different streets of the town. 
 
 (6) The ages of the victims differed. 
 
 (c) Their occupations differed, and so. on. 
 But amongst all the circumstances there was one which was 
 common to every case, viz., all the patients had drunk milk 
 coming from one farm. Comparison of the different circum- 
 stances enables us to say that (a) the locality, (6) the age of 
 the sufferers, (c) their occupation, are not causally connected 
 with the outbreak ; but that the milk, being the only circum- 
 stance common to all, most probably is the cause. 
 
 Observe that we say " most prohably." To be absolutely 
 certain we should have to know that the given circumstance 
 was the only material one in which all the cases 
 agree. Although in many cases we may be certain enough for 
 all practical purposes, we may not be logically certain. The 
 Canon of Agreement, therefore, only enables us to clear away 
 an indefinite number of casual, immaterial companion circum- 
 stances. But, it only more or less probably assures us that the 
 residue is alone causal. We have to allow for the plurality of 
 causes, i.e., several causes producing or combining to produce 
 the same effect. 
 
106 CANON OF DIFFBRKNCE!. 
 
 The Method of Agreement is mainly, though not exclusively^ 
 one of observation rather than of experiment. It is applied 
 more frequently and successfully to enquire into the causes of 
 given efifects, than into the effects of given causes. As we 
 have before remarked, to find the effect of a given cause, 
 experiment is better than observation ; but to find the causes 
 of a given effect, observation and its Method of Agreement are 
 usually safer guides than experiment. 
 
 2. The Canon or Method of Difference. — " When the 
 addition of an agent is followed by the appearance of a 
 certain effect, or when the subtraction of an agent is 
 followed by the disappearance of a certain effect, no other 
 material circumstance having been added or subtracted at 
 the same time or in the meanwhile, and no change having 
 occurred among the original circumstances, that agent is a 
 cause of the effect." 
 
 We have here two sets of circumstances, and we know that 
 they differ from one another in one, and only one essential 
 particular. What this essential particular is, we also know. 
 Now, whatever happens in the set of circumstances, in which 
 the given particular occurs, and which does not happen in the 
 set of circumstances where the given particular is absent, must 
 be due to the given particular. In other words it is the cause 
 of t\e effect observed. To take an illustration with which the 
 studtent will probably be familiar : a feather and a coin are 
 suspended in the receiver of an air-pump, from which all air 
 has been exhausted. They fall to the bottom at the same 
 moment. Air is introduced into the receiver : the feather 
 flutters to the bottom at some mterval after the coin. Here 
 the phenomenon under consideration is the retardation of the 
 feather. This is an observed effect of which we desire to find 
 the cause. The exhausted receiver is one set of circumstances ; 
 the receiver with air introduced is the other. The presence or 
 
THE JOINT METHOD. 107 
 
 absence of air in the receiver is the only particular in which 
 the circumstances differ. The phenomenon of retardation, 
 oceuring in one case but not in the other, is at once described 
 as the effect of which " air " is in some way the cause. 
 
 It is quite possible to express the reasoning of the two 
 canons in the form of a syllogism. The illustration given 
 might be expressed in general terms as follows : — 
 
 ^^ All cases of observed or experimentally produced 
 sequence which fulfil the conditions of the canon of 
 difference must he cases of constant or causal sequence 
 cmd not mere coincidences (Major Premiss). 
 
 These cases are cases in which the conditions required 
 hy the canon of difference are realised (Minor Premiss). 
 
 Therefore, these cases are cases of causal connection 
 (Conclusion). 
 
 In these days every teacher is obliged to pursue some 
 amount of experimental work, and so becomes familiar with 
 the logical principles involved in reasonings which obey the 
 conditions of the canons of induction. In the constant search 
 for the causes of effects, and the effects of causes, cases arise 
 to which the two great canons, which we have already 
 considered, are not directly applicable. Hence other canons 
 have been formulated which must now be discussed. 
 
 3. The Canon of the Joint Method of Agreement and 
 Difference : or, as it is more accurately called. 
 
 The Canon of the Joint Method of Agreement in Presence 
 and in Absence. — " If two or more instances in which the 
 phenomenon occurs, have only one circumstance in 
 common, while two or more instances in which it does not 
 occur have nothing in common save the absence of that 
 circumstance ; the circumstance in which alone the two 
 sets of instances differ, is the effect or the cause or an 
 indispensable part of the cause of the phenomenon." 
 
108 THE JOINT METHOD. 
 
 This is the form in which the canon is usually given, but 
 it will become somewhat more intelligible if stated a little 
 more fully. 
 
 If two or more instances in which a phenomenon occurs 
 have only one other circumstance (either antecedent or 
 consequent) in common : 
 
 whilst two or more instances in which it does not occur 
 (though in some important points they resemble the 
 former set of instances) have nothing in common save 
 the absence of that circumstance : 
 
 then the circumstance in which alone the two sets of 
 instances differ throughout {i.e., being present in the first 
 set and absent in the second set) is the effect or the 
 cause, or an indispensable part of the cause of the 
 phenomenon. 
 
 Although this canon reads somewhat complicated and 
 difficult, it is as a matter of fact, only the precise statement of 
 a form of reasoning which is in constant use. This will appear 
 from a simple illustration. A man observes that whenever 
 he eats cucumber he suffers from indigestion afterwards. 
 Now by the method of agreement he might infer that the 
 cucumber was the cause of his discomfort. But perhaps he is 
 specially fond of cucumber, in which case he may endeavour 
 to lay the fault of his sickness upon the salmon or the cheese, 
 or something else that he had eaten along with the cucumber. 
 But if he is a wise man he makes for himself a fresh set of 
 instances where he has eaten cheese, salmon, etc., but no 
 cucumber, and if he finds that on these occasions he has not 
 suffered from indigestion, then he is bound to conclude that it 
 w^as the cucumber that alone was responsible for the indigestion. 
 
 If the canon of the Joint Method is now' read along with 
 this simple illustration, the student will have no difficulty 
 in grasping the steps in the reasoning. 
 
THE METHOD OF CONCOMITAITr VAEIATIONS. 100 
 
 It should be noticed that the Joint Method like the Method 
 of Agreement rests mainly on observation, and a high degree 
 of probability is the utmost that can be generally inferred 
 by its use. It has, however, this special advantage over the 
 Method of Agreement, that if the second set of instances, 
 in which the phenomenon and its supposed antecedent 
 (the indigestion and the cucumber in our illustration) are 
 both absent, can be made exhaustive, then any hypothesis 
 of a plurality of causes is precluded. 
 
 The principle of the Joint Method may be summed up 
 in two propositions worth remembering : — 
 
 (a) That which is not followed by a given event is not 
 the cause ; 
 
 (6) That which cannot be left out without impairing a 
 phenomenon is a condition of it. 
 
 4. The Canon or Method of Concomitant Yapiations. — 
 
 " Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner whenever 
 another phenomenon varies in some particular manner, 
 is either a cause or an effect of that phenomenon, or is 
 connected with it through some fact of causation." 
 
 This method is in reality a special case of the previous 
 canons for use in cases to which they cannot be applied 
 in their entirety. There are, for example, certain forces 
 which can never be entirely eliminated, and consequently 
 it is impossible to obtain negative instances. Thus we cannot 
 entirely deprive a body of the whole of its heat. We can 
 therefore only reason .about the effects of heat by making 
 changes in the amount of heat in a given body. If when the 
 quantity of heat is varied we ascertain that there are con- 
 comitant changes in the accompanying circumstances, then we 
 are able to establish the relation of cause and effect between 
 the varying amount of heat and the attendant circumstances. 
 
110 THE METHOD OF CONCOMITANT VARIATIONS. 
 
 Thus, if on the occurrence of friction we lind the temperature 
 of a body increased, say ten degrees, and ascertain that 
 besides the friction no other circumstance affecting the body 
 has changed, then we are justified in concluding that the 
 friction has been the cause of the rise in temperature. The 
 law of the expansion of bodies of heat was ascertained by this 
 method of reasoning. 
 
 The method of concomitant variations may now be 
 illustrated quite generally : — 
 
 Let A and a be the two phenomena under consideration, 
 and let A', a\ and A", a!' represent corresponding alterations 
 (whether of increase or decrease) of the phenomena. Now 
 suppose we have three sets of circumstances, ABC, A' D E, 
 A" F G, with corresponding phenomena ah c, a' d e, a!' /, g. 
 Now the one thing only in which the two sets of circumstances 
 agree throughout, is that any alteration in A {i.e., A' or A") is 
 followed or accompanied by a corresponding alteration in a 
 {a' or a!'). From this we infer that most probably A is the 
 cause of a. We say " most probably " for in the second case 
 D E might be the cause of the alteration of a to a', and in the 
 third case F G might be the cause of the alteration of a to a". 
 But if after many trials it is found that A and a always vary 
 together, then the probability of their causal connection 
 becomes more and more a certainty. Yet just because it is 
 nearly always possible that some unobserved cause is the real 
 determinant of both A, a, and also their concomitant variations, 
 absolute certainty can never, theoretically, be attained by this 
 method. 
 
 These four methods are the reasonings which are employed 
 when in the course of investigations we attempt to eliminate 
 mere casual connections present with those which are related 
 as cause and effect. After definite progress has been made by 
 the use of these methods of elimination, further problems are 
 greatly simplified by subtracting from any complex sequence 
 
THE METHOD OP BBS1DUK8. 113 
 
 what has already been found to be the influence of ascertained 
 causes. This process of subtraction or simpHfication is known 
 as the method of residues. 
 
 5. The Canon or Method of Residues. — *' Subtract from 
 any phenomenon such part as previous induction has 
 shown to be the effect of certain antecedents, and the 
 residue of the phenomenon is the effect of the remaining 
 antecedents." 
 
 The reasoning here is quite simple. Suppose that the 
 antecedents A, B, C, D, are followed by the consequents 
 a, 6, c, d, and that by previous inductions it has been 
 ascertained that B is the cause of b, C of c, D of d. Then by 
 subtraction we infer that A is the cause of a. 
 
 It has been by this method that many of the elements of 
 Chemistry have been discovered. Quite recently it was 
 observed that nitrogen obtained from the atmosphere was 
 slightly heavier than that obtained by ordinary chemical 
 manipulation. This excess in weight was an instance of a 
 residual phenomenon for which the cause must be sought 
 in some peculiarity of the atmosphere. Lord Eayleigh 
 investigated this and so discovered argon, a new element 
 in the air, which had been present along with the nitrogen 
 obtained from the atmosphere, and which accounted for 
 the difference in weight. 
 
 Such, then, are the five Canons of Induction, or the logical 
 conditions which regulate inferences about the laws of nature, 
 and in particular the law of causation. They are calculated 
 contrivances for finding out when causal connection really 
 exists, and all scientific work exemplifies these rules. The 
 exact words of each canon should be committed to memory, 
 and the student should be prepared to give one or more 
 concrete illustrations of each method. 
 
112 THE PLURALITY OF CAUSES. 
 
 It remains now to consider briefly the two conditions 
 which, separately or together, tend to frustrate the methods 
 in their practical application to the phenomena of nature. 
 These are : — 
 
 1. The fact that only comparatively few ej^ects in- 
 variably follow one set of antecedents alone ; and 
 
 2. It is only in comparatively few instances that a 
 single effect can he Tcept apart and distinguishable. 
 
 In short, there is a Plurality of Causes on the one hand, and 
 an Intermixture of Effects possible on the other. 
 
 1. The Plurality of Causes.— This we have already seen is 
 the special weakness of the Method of Agreement. Thus, for 
 example, if the phenomenon of heat in a given body were 
 mider observation we could not with certainty infer that the 
 particular amount of heat under observation was due to one 
 cause (say friction) because, by the Method of Agreement, it 
 had been established that friction was always accompanied by 
 an increase of heat. For in this particular case the definite 
 quantity of heat might have been the result of combustion, 
 the solar ray, electricity, etc., or it might have been the result 
 of several of these combined. The remedy for this inherent 
 weakness of the Method of Agreement is to multiply instances 
 as much as possible, and if practicable to apply the Joint 
 Method. The multiplication of instances enables us to 
 ascertain, possibly, all the causes which produce the effect, and 
 then it is easier to say which of these could have been present 
 in any special case and which of those actually present were 
 free to operate to produce the effect. If, then, we could 
 further apply the Joint Method and discover cases in absence^ 
 the conclusion would be decisive. 
 
 2, The Intermixture of Effects. — In nature the effects of 
 various causes seldom remain separate and distinguishable. 
 
INTBRMIXTUEE OF EFFECTS. 113 
 
 More frequently is it that the effects of various causes unite in 
 a single homogeneous total. For example, a good crop is a 
 single effect, but the causes which have united to produce it 
 are very numerous. Each cause has had its own effect, but 
 the separate effects are united to form one single result. In 
 such cases the Method of Concomitant Variations has a 
 peculiar advantage. For when, amid a variety of causes, one 
 cause happens to vary alone, we know that its effect will vary 
 alone also. When this has been sufficiently observed, then 
 cause and effect may frequently be singled out under circum- 
 stances ot great complication. 
 
CHAPTER XVm. 
 
 Arguments Similar to Induction. 
 
 I. Analogy. — In ordinary life we are often as much 
 obliged to act upon what is probably true as upon what we 
 know is certainly true. Analogy is a form of reasoning which 
 aims only at giving more or less probable certainty. If we 
 find two things closely resembling each other in certain 
 observed ways, we argue that they will probably resemble each 
 other in ways which we have not observed. This is the 
 formula of analogy. Induction argues : " These sequences 
 have been found in some instances, therefore they will be 
 found in all instances." Analogy argues : " These two things 
 resemble each other in certain quaUties, therefore they probably 
 resemble each other in other quaUties. Some of the planets 
 are known to resemble the earth in certain respects, therefore 
 they probably resemble the earth in being inhabited." Butler's 
 great work on the " Analogy of Religion " argues that, because 
 nature and revealed rehgion have many resemblances, there- 
 fore it is probable that they have a common Author. 
 
 Logic lays down the following rules for good analogical 
 reasoning : — 
 
 1. The ratio or proportion in nimiber of resemblances 
 must be contrasted with the number of known differ- 
 ences. If the former are many and the latter few the 
 
IKDUCTIVE FAIiliACIEB. 115 
 
 analogical conclusion is increased in probability, and vice 
 versa. N.B. — If one of the things about which we are 
 arguing is only little known, the unknown points must be 
 added to the points of difference in contrast with the 
 resemblances. Thus, the argument about the planets 
 being inhabited is weakened by the fact that we know 
 very little about them. 
 
 2. The kind of resembling and differentiating circum- 
 stances must be carefully considered, and the general 
 result compared with what we know of the laws of the 
 universe. Thus, in the case of the planets, we know that 
 life as it exists on the earth can only exist within certain 
 definite limits of temperature and in connection with 
 atmospheric air. Mercury is too hot, Saturn is too cold, 
 whilst the moon has no atmosphere. All the resemblances, 
 therefore, count for nothing when we consider the kind of 
 differences that exist. 
 
 II. Inductio per enumerationem simplicem. — This argument 
 is a kind of inductive fallacy. It argues that, because a case 
 happens to be true in every instance in our experience, there- 
 fore it is a general law or truth. Before we can assume that 
 a thing is universally true, because we have never known an 
 instance to the contrary, we must have reason to suppose 
 that, if there had been instances to the contrary, we should 
 have heard of them. 
 
 III. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc— This is the fallacy of 
 Induction. It is the confusion of casual with causal connec- 
 tion, against which the Inductive Canons sure designed to guard 
 us. Thus, we have a National Debt and we have national 
 prosperity. We are arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc, if we 
 ascribe the prosperity to the Debt. " After, therefore because 
 of " is the generic name for imperfect proof of causation from 
 observed facts of succession. 
 
116 DKDUCTION AND INDUCTION. 
 
 IV. Perfect Induction is the name given to the conclusion, 
 when all possible cases have been duly examined, and we have 
 summarised the result in a general proposition. It, however. 
 Induction is defined as an inference from the known to the 
 unknown, it is obvious that "perfect induction" is really no 
 induction at all. 
 
 Bblation of Deduction to Induction. 
 
 Having thus briefly considered the aim and scope of 
 Deductive and Inductive Logic, it only remains to get 
 Into clear perspective the relation between the two. Some 
 modern logicians, seeing the vast practical importance 
 of Inductive Logic as the logic of the physical sciences, 
 have been led to doubt the value of Deductive Logic 
 altogether. They argue that the syllogism is only a 
 petitio principU. When we argue that, because all men 
 are mortal, Socrates, being a man, is mortal, the conclusion 
 was "begged" in the general proposition. But the number 
 and variety of fallacies of deduction which abound in ordinary 
 life, are a sufficient warrant to ensure the study of Deductive 
 Logic a permanent and important place in a liberal education. 
 The simplest way of expressing the relation between the two 
 branches is to consider Inductive Logic as the orderly state- 
 ment of those laws by which we arrive at general conclusions. 
 The general conclusions have then validity, based securely on 
 the principle of the uniformity of nature and the aU-pervading 
 law of universal causation. The general conclusions become 
 a sort of memoranda in which our conclusions are expressed. 
 But these memoranda require to be correctly interpreted and 
 reasonably appUed to particular cases. This is the proper 
 work of Deductive Logic. In short, the one is the coimter^. 
 purt oj the other. 
 
BXEBCIBE8. 117 
 
 EXEECISES ON INDUCTIVE LOGIC. 
 
 o 
 
 2. Explain and illustrate the difference between the Inductive 
 and Deductive methods of arriving at truth. What are the chief 
 dangers in reasoning from analogy? Explain and illustrate the 
 terms " redu^tio ad ahsurdum" and " begging the question." 
 
 2. Illustrate the statement that in all discoveries of natural 
 science, the processes of induction and deduction follow each other 
 before a complete verification of a law can be obtained. 
 
 3. What is the exact difference between inductive and deductive 
 reasoning ? Give a simple example of each process in connection 
 with some subject of instruction in an elementary school course. 
 
 4. Give some familiar examples of false induction, and say what 
 school exercises are best calculated to encourage a habit of making a 
 true use of the inductive process. 
 
 5. Distinguish between analogy and induction, hypothesis and 
 theory. What is needed besides induction for ascertaining scientific 
 truth t 
 
 6. By what processes of reasoning would you prove that the earth 
 is round, or that the room in which you are is not empty, but filled 
 with something ; or, by examining a bird that it was an animal 
 made to live in the air ? What name would you give to the process 
 in the last case ? 
 
 7. Distinguish between generalisation and reasoning from 
 analogy, and give an instance of each. 
 
 8. Distinguish between observation and experiment, and show 
 how we may learn by experiment what we could not learn merely 
 from observation. 
 
 9. "Induction is really the inverse process of Deduction,* 
 Explain thin. 
 
118 BXBRCISKS. 
 
 10. What is meant by Inditctio per enumeration szmplicem ? 
 
 11. Why is so called "perfect induction " not considered a really 
 inductive process ? 
 
 12. State exactly what you understand by the terms *' Gav^e and 
 Effect,'' ani " the Plurality of Causes." 
 
 13. What is the meaning and significance of the pri/nciple known 
 as " the Uniformity of Nature " ? 
 
 14. Explain the principle of the Method of Agreement and the 
 Method of Difference respectively, and say to what uses the two 
 methods are appropriate. 
 
Appendix, 
 
 MORE RECENT DEVELOPI^IENTS OF THE 
 SYLLOGISM. 
 
 Since the time of Bacon and Locke, it has been largely 
 the fashion to consider the syllogism as a worthless instrument 
 for the discovery of new truths. Observation and experiment, 
 conducted in accordance with the Canons of Induction, has 
 alone been considered by some as worthy of serious attention. 
 But in recent years the syllogism has again attracted to itself 
 many sympathetic students who have exercised their 
 ingenuity in extending and reconstructing its traditional 
 forms. These newer developments are not noticed in the 
 body of the present work, but some brief account of the 
 three most important of them is now added here. 
 
 1. The Intensive or Comprehensive Interpretation of 
 the Syllogism. — If the student will refer to page 46 of the 
 present work, it will be seen that every proposition was 
 regarded as an assertion respecting the logical extent of the 
 subject and predicate of the proposition. But the terms 
 which form the subject and predicate have connotation 
 (intension) as well as denotation (extension). Consequently 
 a proposition may be regarded as an assertion respecting 
 the logical intension or comprehension of the subject and 
 predicate. When extension alone is in question, the assertion 
 is made on the relation of classes to classes. When intension 
 is the point of view adopted, the assertion is grounded on the 
 relation of attributes to attributes. An attribute contained in the 
 predicate of an affirmative proposition must also be contained 
 in the subject. From one point of view every gtnus is 
 
120 THE NEW ANALYTIC. 
 
 seen to contain its species ; at the other point of view every 
 species is seen to contain its genus. The former is the point 
 of view of the ordinary syllogism, i.e., the syllogism in 
 extension ; the latter is the point of view of the syllogism in 
 comprehension. Any syllogism may be interpreted in either 
 way. In order to bring a syllogism out of extension into 
 comprehension, the rule is : 
 
 Beverse the premises, and then read or interpret each 
 proposition intensively. 
 
 Thus the following syllogism in extension — 
 
 " All M is imder P 
 
 All S is under ]\I 
 
 .-. All S is under P " 
 
 becomes, by the apphcation of the rule, a syllogism m 
 
 intension — 
 
 "All S contains M 
 
 All M contains P 
 .'. All S contains P." 
 It is not at all likely that a student of elementary logic will 
 be questioned on this matter, but it is quite worth while to 
 remember that every reasoning in the syllogistic form may 
 be read either way, and that the student should understand 
 how to translate a syllogism in extension to one in compre- 
 hension. 
 
 2. The New Analytic. — A much more important event in 
 the history of the syllogism was the revolution suggested by 
 Sir W. Hamilton, and known as " the new analytic of logical 
 forms." When we use, e.g., an A proposition, such as "All S 
 is P," we mean that, amongst an indefinite number of things 
 represented by P, all things represented by S are included. 
 Hamilton considered that, in the precise language of logic, 
 every proposition ought to say clearly all that it is meant to 
 express. If this were done, then the ordinary A proposition 
 
THE NEW ANALYTIC. 121 
 
 would be written " All S is some P." Thus the foundation of 
 Hamilton's endeavour was the express and independent 
 recognition of extensive quantity in the predicates as well as 
 the subjects of propositions. Hence the system was described 
 briefly as " the quantification of the predicate." Now, if this 
 is carried out in each of the recognised prepositional forms 
 A, E, I, O, we shall obtain four entirely new ones, as shown 
 by the following table : — 
 
 NEW CORKESPONDINQ FORMS. 
 
 U. All S is all P 
 
 1] No S is some P 
 Y. Some S is all P 
 
 w. Some S is not some P 
 
 USUAL FORMS WITH PREDICATE 
 QUANTIFIED, 
 
 A. All S is some P 
 E. No S is any P 
 I. Some S is some P 
 O. Some S is not any P 
 
 The four new forms have the symbols U i| Y w, corre- 
 sponding to the traditional A E I 0. 
 
 Considering briefly the four new forms, it may be remarked 
 that two of them, U and Y, are in frequent use in ordinary 
 language. Thus every definition is practically a U proposition ; 
 e.g., *' Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and America are all the 
 continents " ; "Common salt is the same as sodium chloride." 
 Again, any exclusive assertion is an example of a Y pro- 
 position; e.g., "Graduates only are eligible for the appoint- 
 ment," or " Some passengers are the only survivors." Since, 
 therefore, U and Y propositions are in ordinary use, it would 
 seem a valid contention that they should receive recognition 
 in Logic. Of course, it is quite possible to express a U 
 proposition in the older forms. Thus the proposition " All S 
 is all P " may be resolved into two A propositions, " All S is 
 P" and "All P is S," which, taken together, are equivalent 
 to it. 
 
 Whilst there seem practical reasons for the recognition of 
 U and Y propositions, it must be said that the same reason 
 does not hold good for the new propositions q and w. They 
 
122 THE NEW ANALYTIC. 
 
 are theoretically possible, but they are seldom if ever found 
 in ordinary use. 
 
 If the principle of the quantification of the predicate is 
 adopted, many remarkable results follow. Every logical pro- 
 position becomes an equation between the two quantified 
 terms which it contains. The relation between the terms of 
 a proposition thus becomes one of co-extension, and this implies 
 that each of the eight kinds of propositions may be converted 
 simply. Again, when propositions with a quantified predicate 
 are combined to form syllogisms, it is possible to express the 
 whole syllogism equationally and without figure. Thus the 
 ordinary syllogism — 
 
 •' All patriots are brave. 
 Some persecuted persons are patriots, 
 ,'. Some persecuted persons are brave," 
 may be written as an equated syllogism as follows : — 
 " All patriots = some brave men. 
 Some persecuted persons = some patriots, 
 .'. Some persecuted persons = some brave men." 
 
 This equational theory of reasoning can also be developed in 
 moods and figures as well as in unfigured syllogism. It ia 
 quite beyond the scope of an Elementary Logic to work 
 out such development. But it may be interesting to note that 
 in this way we obtain 3 valid figures and 108 valid moods, 
 instead of the 4 figures and 19 moods recognised by traditional 
 logic. The advantages claimed for the new analytic are : — 
 
 1. The special rules of each figure are abrogated, and 
 their violation ceases to be illogical. 
 
 2. Eeduction of syllogisms, like the conversion of pro- 
 positions, ceases to be necessary. 
 
 3. Each figure is alike capable of expressing the relation 
 of the terms in the reasoning, whilst each figure discharges 
 a function specially its own. 
 
THE NUMERICAL SYLLOGISM. 123 
 
 Granting all these advantages, it still remains to be con- 
 sidered whether the forms of the new analytic are more 
 convenient and useful as a framework for the unabridged 
 expression of our assertions and reasonings, and also as an 
 aid in the detection of fallacies. And further, are the advan- 
 tages — scientific and practical — great enough to counterbalance 
 the inconvenience of substituting it for that analysis that has 
 been generally received since Aristotle ? The general answer 
 to these questions given by the great authorities on Logic is 
 in the negative. 
 
 3. The Numerically Definite Syllogism. — Some logicians 
 contend that, besides the definite " All " and the indefinite 
 " Some," Logic ought to recognise definite arithmetical 
 quantity. They would consider the following examples quite 
 legitimate logical reasoning : — 
 
 " Two-thirds M is P 
 Two-thirds M is S 
 .-. Some Sis P." 
 *' Seventy per cent, of M are P 
 Sixty per cent, of M are S 
 .'.At least thirty per cent, are both S and P." 
 
 In neither of these cases is the middle term distributed in 
 the premises, but the conclusion is correctly drawn according 
 to the rules of arithmetic. De Morgan contends that in 
 such cases it is permissible to mingle the relations of self- 
 consistency with the principles of arithmetic, and no doubt, 
 if this is admitted, the variety and complication of the 
 syllogistic forms will be immensely increased. But it is 
 properly urged, on the other hand, that where numerical 
 evidence of the kind contained in the propositions which form 
 the two illustrations above is obtainable, then the compara- 
 tively indefinite arguments of logic are needless and out of 
 place. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 J»<c 
 
 A Propositions 
 
 Absolute terms 
 
 Abstract terms 
 
 Accent, fallacy of 
 
 Accident, fallacy of 
 
 „ separable & inseparable 
 
 Accidents 
 
 A dido secundum quid 
 Affirmative propositions ... 
 Agreement, method of ... 
 
 „ and difference, joint 
 
 method of... 
 Ambiguity, fallacies of ... 
 Ambiguity of " all," etc. ... 
 
 ,, „ terms 
 
 Amphibology, fallacy of ... 
 
 Analogy 
 
 Analytic, the new 
 
 Antecedent and consequent 
 
 Appendix 
 
 Argumentum ad liominem ... 
 Arpumentum ad terecunduvi 
 
 Aristotle's dictum 
 
 Art and Science 
 
 Begging the question 
 
 Canons of syllogisms 
 
 Canons, inductive 
 
 Categorematic words 
 Categorical propositions ... 
 
 Cause and effect 
 
 Causes, plurality of 
 Circle, arguing in a 
 
 Classification 
 
 Collective terms 
 
 Common terms 
 
 Composition, fallacy of ... 
 Comprehensive interpretation of 
 
 the syllogism 
 
 Conditional syllogisms ... 
 
 Concept 
 
 Conclusion of syllogism ... 
 Concomitant variations,method of 
 
 Concrete terms 
 
 Conditional propositions ... 
 ,, syllogisms ... 
 
 Conjecture 
 
 Conjunctive syllogism 
 
 Connotation 
 
 Connotative terms 
 
 Consequent 
 
 ,, fallacy of the... 
 
 Contraposition 
 
 Contrary opposition . . 
 
 Contradictory opposition... 
 Conversion, inferences of 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 
 PAGE* 
 
 . 46 
 
 Copula 
 
 .. 44 
 
 . 23 
 
 Cross division 
 
 .. 37 
 
 . 24 
 
 Deduction 
 
 15, 116 
 
 . 91 
 
 Definite syllogism, the numeri- 
 
 . 92 
 
 cally definite 
 
 .. 123 
 
 i 32 
 
 Definition 
 
 .. 34 
 
 . 82 
 
 „ of Logic 
 
 .. 12 
 
 . 92 
 
 Denotation 
 
 .. 28 
 
 . 45 
 
 Description 
 
 .. 35 
 
 . 104 
 
 Detection of fallacies 
 
 .. 94 
 
 
 Developments of the syllogism 
 
 .. 119 
 
 . 107 
 
 Dichotomy 
 
 .. 38 
 
 90 
 
 Dictum, de omni et nullo ... 
 
 .. 65 
 
 . 49 
 
 Difference, method of 
 
 .. 106 
 
 26,90 
 
 Differentia 
 
 .. 32 
 
 . 90 
 
 Diienima ... 
 
 .. 86 
 
 . 114 
 
 Disjunctive propositions... 
 
 .. 43 
 
 , 120 
 
 syllogisms ... 
 
 .. 84 
 
 . 83 
 
 Distributed, meaning of ... 
 
 .. 44 
 
 . 119 
 
 Distribution 
 
 .. 48 
 
 . 93 
 
 Division 
 
 .. 36 
 
 . 93 
 
 „ fallacy of ... ... 
 
 .. 91 
 
 . 65 
 . 14 
 
 Dogmatic hypothesis 
 
 .. 102 
 
 Effects, intermixture of ... 
 
 .. 112 
 
 . 98 
 
 E Propositions 
 
 .. 46 
 
 
 7? Propositions 
 
 .. 121 
 
 63 
 
 Enthymene 
 
 .. 79 
 
 . 104 
 
 Epicheirema 
 
 .. 80 
 
 23 
 
 Episyllogism 
 
 .. 80 
 
 41 
 
 Equivocal terms 
 
 .. 26 
 
 99 
 
 Equivocation 
 
 .. 90 
 
 112 
 
 Euler's diagrams 47 
 
 , 48, 64 
 
 94 
 
 Evidence 
 
 17 
 
 38 
 
 Excluded middle, law of ... 
 
 20 
 
 24 
 
 Exercises 11, 18, 21, 26, 33, 39, 
 
 40,50. 
 
 23 
 
 60, 68, 78, 78, 81, 87, 96, 117, 118 
 
 91 
 
 Experiment 
 
 .. 101 
 
 
 Extension and intension ... 
 
 .. 27 
 
 119 
 
 83 
 
 External fallacies 
 
 .. 91 
 
 15 
 
 Fallacies, detection of 
 
 .. 94 
 
 62 
 
 Fallacy 
 
 .. 88 
 
 f 109 
 
 False cause, fallacy of ... 
 
 .. 92 
 
 24 
 
 Figures of the syllogism ... 
 
 .. 69 
 
 43 
 
 Formal Fallacies 
 
 90 
 
 82 
 102 
 
 Fundamentum divisionis ... 
 
 .. 37 
 
 83 
 
 Genus 
 
 .. 29 
 
 27 
 
 Grammar 
 
 .. 17 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 83 
 
 Hypothesis 
 
 .. 102 
 
 92 
 
 Hypothetical propositions 
 
 .. 43 
 
 57 
 53 
 
 „ syllogism ... 
 
 .. 88 
 
 52 
 
 I Propositions 
 
 .. 46 
 
 55 
 
 Identity, law of 
 
 .. 20 
 
ii. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Ignoratio elenchi 92 
 
 Illicit process 65 
 
 Immediate inference 52 
 
 Induction 16,98,116 
 
 Inductio per enumerationem sim- 
 
 plicem 115 
 
 Inductive Logic, exercises ... 117 
 
 Inferences 13 
 
 Infima species 30 
 
 Inseparable accident 32 
 
 Intension 27 
 
 Intense interpretation of the 
 
 syllogism 119 
 
 Intermixture of effects 112 
 
 Internal fallacies R9 
 
 Irrelevant conclusion 
 
 Joint method of agreement and 
 
 difference 
 
 Judgments 
 
 Law 
 
 Laws of thought 
 
 Legitimate hypothesis, conditions 
 
 of 
 
 Logic, derivation of the word ... 
 
 Major premiss 
 
 „ term 
 
 Many questions, fallacy of 
 
 Mediate inference 
 
 Metaphysics 
 
 Method of agreement 
 
 „ ,, agreement and differ- 
 ence, joint 
 
 „ „ difference 
 
 „ „ concomitant variations 
 
 „ „ residues 
 
 Middle term 
 
 Minor premiss 
 
 ,, terms 
 
 Mnemonic lines 
 
 Modus ponens 
 
 ,, tollens 
 
 Moods of the syllogism 
 
 Negative and positive terms 
 
 Negative propositions 
 
 New analytic, the 
 
 Non-contradiction, law of 
 
 Nonsequitur 
 
 Numerically definite syllogism ... 
 
 O Propositions 
 
 w Propositions 
 
 Observation and experiment ... 
 
 Obversion 
 
 Opposition, inferences of 
 
 Particular propositions 
 
 Per accidens 
 
 Perfect figure 
 
 „ induction 
 
 92 
 
 107 
 13 
 
 108 
 14 
 
 91 
 61 
 89 
 104 
 
 107 
 106 
 109 
 111 
 62 
 62 
 62 
 75 
 
 45 
 120 
 20 
 92 
 123 
 
 121 
 101 
 56 
 52 
 
 45 
 55 
 74 
 116 
 
 PAGE. 
 .. 56 
 
 .. 93 
 7 
 .. 112 
 .. 80 
 .. 31 
 
 Parmutation, inferences of 
 
 Petitio principii 
 
 Philosophy and its branches 
 
 Plurality of causes 
 
 Polysyllogism 
 
 Porphyry, tree of 
 
 Positive terms 24 
 
 Post hoc, vropter hoc 115 
 
 Predicables 29 
 
 Predicate, quantification of ... 121 
 
 Premiss 61 
 
 Proper terms 23 
 
 Property 32 
 
 Proposition 13, 42 
 
 Prosyllogism 80 
 
 Proximate genus 31 
 
 Psychology 9 
 
 Quality of propositions 44 
 
 Quantification of the predicate... 121 
 
 Quantity of propositions 44 
 
 Beductio ad absurdum 77 
 
 Reduction 74 
 
 Relation of deduction and induc- 
 tion 116 
 
 Relative terms 25 
 
 Residues, method of Ill 
 
 Rules of the figures of the syllo- 
 gism 72 
 
 Rules of the syllogism 63 
 
 Science 12 
 
 Simple apprehension 15 
 
 Singular terms 23 
 
 Sorites 80 
 
 Species 29 
 
 Subaltern opposition 53 
 
 Sub-contrary opposition 53 
 
 Sufficient reason, law of 21 
 
 Summum genus 30 
 
 Syllogism 63 
 
 „ intensive interpretation 
 
 of 119 
 
 ,, more recent develop- 
 ment of 119 
 
 „ the numerically definite 123 
 
 Syncategorematic words 23 
 
 Terms 17,22 
 
 Thought 12 
 
 U Propositions 121 
 
 Undistributed, meaning of ... 44 
 
 Uniformity of nature 98 
 
 Universal propositions 45 
 
 Univocal terms 26 
 
 Variations, concomitant, method 
 
 of 
 
 Verbal fallacies 
 
 Y Propositions 
 
 109 
 90 
 
 121 
 
 Printed by Henry Palmer & Co., London. 
 
 
flu ElBmeiitaig & Intermediate fllgeHia. 
 
 WITH EXERCISES AND ANSWERS. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 Rev. J. LIGHTFOOT, D.Sc, M.A., Author of ' Elemeydarij Logic," etc., etc. 
 
 Graphic Methods are logically developed in their appropriate places 
 and profusely illustrated with a large number of carefully drawn diagrams 
 
 PRESS NOTICES;- "■"" *^- 
 
 " A capital book of its special kind."— The Sheffield Daily Independent. 
 
 " A well arranged practical book, well up to modern requirements." — The 
 Head Teacher. 
 
 "Logical development; principles rigorously established." — The Educa- 
 tional Times. 
 
 " The work is written in a clear and concise style, admirably arranged and 
 well printed."— The Belfast News-Letter. 
 
 " The teaching is unimpeachable and healthy. We wish success to this 
 fine exposition of Algebra." — The Schoolmaster. 
 
 " We have much pleasure in recommending it as, in every respect, a first- 
 class text-book on Algebra."— The Schoolmistress. 
 
 " An excellent book, takmg the student as far as the binomial theorem and 
 scales of notation, with constant care to make his ideas vivid and practical. An 
 introduction to the binomial and remainder theorems is given immediately 
 after the chapter on simple equations, in a chapter entitled, ' Special Results 
 n Multiplication and Division.' Graphs are used and diagrams supplied 
 wherever they are wanted. An excellent treatment of the whole subject." — 
 The Education Gazette (issued by the Department of Public Education, S.A. 
 
 " The SHbject is developed in lucid and helpful ways, with numerous 
 examples. It may be commended to the notice of schoolmasters."— The 
 Yorkshire Daily Post. 
 
 " A most valuable introduction to the study of Algebra We 
 
 have pleasure in bringing it under the notice of our readers." — The Irish 
 Teachers' Journal. 
 
 " Few works on Algebra merit the recommendation of Dr. Lightfoot's 
 work. Its characteristics are originality, clearness, and accuracy. Many of 
 the worked examples are perfect models."— The Teacher. 
 
 " We do not remember to have seen them (Graphic Methodsj so simply and 
 clearly given in any similar treatise, and in themselves they are sufficient to 
 commend Dr. Lightfoot's work to the student."— The Irish Times. 
 
 " A first-rate book. It covers much ground, is full of lucid explanation, 
 has abundant examples, is capitally planned, and possesses some unique 
 features. Altogether, it should take a high place among the best of modern 
 school books."— The Board Teacher. 
 
 "The matter is very logically arranged, and the illustrative examples are 
 perfect models."— The Teachers' Aid. 
 
 " The treatise possesses a large amount of originality based on common 
 sense principles. Although the number of books on Algebra is larg and is 
 still increasing, yet we are of opinion that there is plenty of room forethe one 
 under consideration." — The Western Morning News. 
 
 "Among newer mathematical text-books suitable for the use of young 
 students, there are few that have come under our notice that are so good as 
 
 'An Elementary and Intermediate Algebra,' by Dr. Lightfoot The 
 
 book is a most commendable piece of work and deserving of high praise."— 
 The School Guardian. 
 
 "- In spite of the large number of algebra books on the market, we cordially 
 welcome the appearance of this one. It is well arranged, and presents the 
 subject in logical steps ; the teaching is driven home by concrete illustrations 
 and what innovations have been made are distinct improvements." — The 
 Practical Teacher. 
 
 *** A full Catalogue of the best books for Student Teacliers will be forwarded pos 
 
 free on application. 
 Of all Booksellers, or post free at published price from— 
 
 RALPH, HOLLAND & Co. 
 
a 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RJsX URN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT, 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 
 
 LIBRARY USE 
 
 
 JUL 9 1957 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LD 21-100m-6,'56 ,, .General Library _ 
 ( B9311810 ) 476 ^°'''^"g^2'el^^'^°''°** 
 
9 
 
 YB 24n82 
 
 X 
 
 ^ 
 
i»Wg^»®ili^ll^^lil; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^!»i?:'S«^lW' 
 
 
 •S;-H.;^ffl!!!!ht; 
 
 ;rf:';;:(i}!!(i^,yij^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "'■Wir*^"v."^M 
 
 , 
 
 ^^^^^^^ 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 IH 
 
 BHRHHIBHHHI 
 
 
 I^MRHHi 
 
 HlBI^HBBBBiPil 
 
 
 
 I^^MHH 
 
 "KQ^^^^I 
 
 ..»%m ii M. i ij i M K 
 
 --« _.^^