| Paragraph 1 |
The preceding arguments constitute our defence of the superiority of commensurately universal to particular demonstration. |
| Paragraph 2 |
(1) We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses-in short from fewer premisses; |
| Paragraph 3 |
Hence demonstration by fewer premisses is ceteris paribus superior. |
| Paragraph 4 |
(2) It has been proved that no conclusion follows if both premisses are negative, but that one must be negative, the other affirmative. |
| Paragraph 5 |
(3) The basic truth of demonstrative syllogism is the universal immediate premiss, and the universal premiss asserts in affirmative demonstration and in negative denies: |
| Paragraph 6 |
(4) Affirmative demonstration is more of the nature of a basic form of proof, because it is a sine qua non of negative demonstration. |
HTML by 
created 94/10/29 modified 1998/9/3