| Paragraph 1 |
If one premiss is a simple proposition, the other a problematic, whenever the major premiss indicates possibility all the syllogisms will be perfect and establish possibility in the sense defined; |
| Paragraph 2 |
It is clear that perfect syllogisms result if the minor premiss states simple belonging: |
| Paragraph 3 |
Since this is proved it is evident that if a false and not impossible assumption is made, the consequence of the assumption will also be false and not impossible: |
| Paragraph 4 |
Since we have defined these points, let A belong to all B, and B be possible for all C: |
| Paragraph 5 |
We must understand 'that which belongs to all' with no limitation in respect of time, e |
| Paragraph 6 |
Again let the premiss AB be universal and negative, and assume that A belongs to no B, but B possibly belongs to all C. |
| Paragraph 7 |
If the minor premiss is negative and indicates possibility, from the actual premisses taken there can be no syllogism, but if the problematic premiss is converted, a syllogism will be possible, as before. |
HTML by 
created 94/10/29 modified 1998/9/3