Book, Paragraph

 1      I,  11|              term, the corresponding negative. For grant a minor term
 2      I,  15|             either is contained in a negative premiss, but not if both
 3      I,  15|            not if both premisses are negative.~Hence it is clear that
 4      I,  16|            true if the major is made negative instead of the minor. Or
 5      I,  16|             if the major is made the negative premiss. For in fact what
 6      I,  17|              erroneous conclusion is negative. If the conclusion is affirmative, (
 7      I,  17|             case also with regard to negative error; for D-B must remain
 8      I,  19|             and B in C; the other is negative and one of its premisses
 9      I,  19|       questions arise with regard to negative conclusions and premisses:
10      I,  21|             it will terminate too in negative demonstration. Let us assume
11      I,  21|              case of negation. For a negative conclusion can be proved
12      I,  21|            terminates in the case of negative demonstration, if it does
13      I,  23|           major term. In the case of negative syllogisms on the other
14      I,  24|            and either affirmative or negative; the question arises, which
15      I,  25|     affirmative demonstration excels negative may be shown as follows.~(
16      I,  25|             Now both affirmative and negative demonstration operate through
17      I,  25|        follows if both premisses are negative, but that one must be negative,
18      I,  25|       negative, but that one must be negative, the other affirmative.
19      I,  25|              cannot be more than one negative premiss in each complete
20      I,  25|          there proves to be a single negative premiss, A-D. In the further
21      I,  25| affirmatively to both extremes; in a negative syllogism it must be negatively
22      I,  25|        negation comes to be a single negative premiss, the other premisses
23      I,  25|            certain truth, and if the negative proposition is proved through
24      I,  25|     affirmative demonstration and in negative denies: and the affirmative
25      I,  25|            and better known than the negative (since affirmation explains
26      I,  25| demonstration is superior to that of negative demonstration, and the demonstration
27      I,  25|              it is a sine qua non of negative demonstration.~
28      I,  26|         demonstration is superior to negative, it is clearly superior
29      I,  26|            is the difference between negative demonstration and reductio
30      I,  26|              assumed, therefore, the negative demonstration that no C
31      I,  26|            according to which of the negative propositions is the better
32      I,  26|              of the other. Therefore negative demonstration will have
33      I,  26|     demonstration, being superior to negative, will consequently be superior
34     II,  3 |           hand, some conclusions are negative and some are not universal;
35     II,  3 |             in the second figure are negative, none in the third are universal.
36     II,  8 |               we must be in a wholly negative state as regards awareness