Paragraph

 1 1 |          symbols of spoken words. Just as all men have not the
 2 7 |          is white", "every man is just", "no man is just".~We see
 3 7 |          man is just", "no man is just".~We see that in a pair
 4 7 |          for the denial must deny just that which the affirmation
 5 9 |         necessity, an event might just as easily not happen as
 6 10|           in the sentence "man is just" the verb "is" is used as
 7 10|         added either to the term "just" or to the term "not-just",
 8 10|      Affirmation B. Denial~Man is just Man is not just~\ /~X~/ \~
 9 10|     Denial~Man is just Man is not just~\ /~X~/ \~D. Denial C. Affirmation~
10 10|         not" are added either to "just" or to "not-just". This
11 10|           B’. Denial~Every man is just Not every man is just~\ /~
12 10|          is just Not every man is just~\ /~X~D’. Denial / \ C’.
13 10|          Thus:~A.” B.”~Not-man is just Not-man is not just~\ /~
14 10|    Not-man is just Not-man is not just~\ /~X~D.” / \ C.”~Not-man
15 10|      proposition "every animal is just" is "no animal is just",
16 10|         is just" is "no animal is just", it is plain that these
17 10| propositions "not every animal is just" and "some animals are just"
18 10|       just" and "some animals are just" are both true.~Further,
19 10|        the proposition "no man is just" follows from the proposition "
20 10|     proposition "every man is not just" and the proposition "not
21 10| proposition "not every man is not just", which is the opposite
22 10|         proposition "some men are just"; for if this be true, there
23 10|          true, there must be some just men.~It is evident, also,
24 10|     everything that is not man is just", and the contradictory
25 10| everything that is not man is not just" is equivalent to the proposition "
26 10|        nothing that is not man is just".~The conversion of the
27 12|           For it comes about that just as in the former instances
28 12|      thing is or is not possible, just as in the former instances "
29 14|         proposition "every man is just" finds its contrary in the
30 14|        the proposition "no man is just", or in the proposition "
31 14|          propositions "Callias is just", "Callias is not just", "
32 14|         is just", "Callias is not just", "Callias is unjust"; we
33 14|           judgement "every man is just" pronounces a contrary to
34 14|        our conclusion in the case just dealt with would seem to