Paragraph

 1 5 |   something is left out in their definition. For to refute is to contradict
 2 6 |     fallacy into breaches of the definition of a refutation. In the
 3 6 |          we should also take the definition bit by bit, and try the
 4 6 |       been defined. For the same definition ought to hold good of "refutation"
 5 6 | described’ as depending upon the definition of a "refutation": and this
 6 6 |   because of the omission in the definition, and if we divide fallacies
 7 6 |          ought to set "Defective definition" as a common mark upon them
 8 6 |    ignoratio elenchi through the definition thereof. For the conclusion
 9 6 |    ignoratio elenchi through the definition thereof. For the conclusion
10 6 |       our failure to dissect the definition of "proposition". For a
11 6 |       single thing. For the same definition applies to "one single thing
12 6 |        failing to conform to the definition of a proof.~
13 7 |      upon an imperfection in the definition of a refutation, and with
14 7 |         to be quite exact in our definition of "premiss" and of "proof"
15 13|          a term and to state its definition, the "double" and "double
16 13|       indicated as well in their definition, they being predicated of
17 26|   Refutations that depend on the definition of a refutation must, according