Book, Paragraph

 1      I,  2 |            e. of our conviction-it follows that we know them better-that
 2      I,  4 |           have a demonstration, it follows that demonstration is an
 3      I,  4 |        such; from which it clearly follows that all commensurate universals
 4      I,  5 |         example of (1) would be as follows: if isosceles were the only
 5      I,  6 |           necessarily inheres.) It follows from this that premisses
 6      I,  6 |          necessary premisses is as follows. Where demonstration is
 7      I,  7 |                               7~It follows that we cannot in demonstrating
 8      I,  11|     not-animal, and the conclusion follows: for it will still be true
 9      I,  13|              a) you might prove as follows that the planets are near
10      I,  15|           the terms themselves. It follows that if either A or B, or
11      I,  19|          The second question is as follows: Suppose nothing is essentially
12      I,  20|        terms between you and A. It follows that if these processes
13      I,  21|          proof by which will be as follows: all B is D, no C is D...,
14      I,  21|           third figure shows it as follows: all B is A, some B is not
15      I,  22|         depend for their force. It follows from this that when a single
16      I,  22|       proofs; an alternative proof follows. Predicates so related to
17      I,  22|      series too.~If this is so, it follows that the intermediates between
18      I,  24|          its angles so related. It follows that he who knows a connexion
19      I,  24|            we have exemplified, it follows that in the case of the
20      I,  24|           particular. From this it follows that universals are more
21      I,  24|      universal demonstration is as follows: if of two propositions,
22      I,  25|           negative may be shown as follows.~(1) We may assume the superiority
23      I,  25|           out in universal form as follows. Assuming that in both cases
24      I,  25|          proved that no conclusion follows if both premisses are negative,
25      I,  25|            prior to not-being). It follows that the basic premiss of
26      I,  26|         the conclusion necessarily follows that no C is A. If these
27      I,  26|            other hand, proceeds as follows. Supposing we are to prove
28      I,  26|            to the conclusion which follows from them, and "no C is
29      I,  32|           we may argue the case as follows, confining-ourselves therefore
30      I,  33|      things that can be "true", it follows that it is opinion that
31     II,  3 |            and a demonstration. It follows obviously that definition
32     II,  5 |   necessity by which the inference follows from the premisses is open
33     II,  8 |           less difficulty. Thus it follows that the degree of our knowledge
34     II,  11|           term that the conclusion follows necessarily. The following
35     II,  11|        right angles, from which it follows that A is attributable to
36     II,  12|         occurring in actual things follows upon a past event. It is
37     II,  12|           of the terms and another follows from it, and from that another,
38     II,  13| characterizing the individuals. It follows that any other synthesis
39     II,  13|           illustrate my meaning as follows. If we were inquiring what
40     II,  16|          cause? One might argue as follows: if the same attribute is
41     II,  17|   definition.~We may illustrate as follows. Deciduous is a universal
42     II,  19|            these considerations it follows that there will be no scientific
43     II,  19|      premisses-a result which also follows from the fact that demonstration