Part 26 (2/2)

The middle term being predicate in both premisses, one or other must be negative; else there would be undistributed middle.

-- 611. Proof of Rule 2.--_The conclusion must be negative._

Since one of the premisses is negative, it follows that the conclusion also must be so (by Rule 6).

-- 612. Proof of Rule 3.--_The major premiss must be universal._

The conclusion being negative, the major term will there be distributed. But the major term is subject in the major premiss. Therefore the major premiss must be universal (by Rule 4).

FIGURE III.

-- 613. Proof of Rule 1.--_The minor premiss must be affirmative._

B--A B--C C--A

The proof of this rule is the same as in the first figure, the two figures being alike so far as the major term is concerned.

-- 614. Proof of Rule 2.--_The conclusion must be particular_.

The minor premiss being affirmative, the minor term, which is its predicate, will be undistributed there. Hence it must be undistributed in the conclusion (by Rule 4). Therefore the conclusion must be particular.

FIGURE IV.

-- 615. Proof of Rule I.--_When the major premiss is affirmative, the minor must be universal_.

If the minor were particular, there would be undistributed middle. [Footnote: Shorter proofs are employed in this figure, as the student is by this time familiar with the method of procedure.]

-- 616. Proof of Rule 2.--_When the minor premiss is particular, the major must be negative._

A--B B--C C--A

This rule is the converse of the preceding, and depends upon the same principle.

-- 617. Proof of Rule 3.--_When the minor premiss is affirmative, the conclusion must be particular._

If the conclusion were universal, there would be illicit process of the minor.

-- 618. Proof of Rule 4.--_When the conclusion is negative, the major premiss must_ be universal.

If the major premiss were particular, there would be illicit process of the major.

-- 619. Proof of Rule 5.--_The conclusion CANNOT be A UNIVERSAL affirmative_.

<script>