Book, Paragraph

 1      I,  3 |        it. Perhaps, however, the second form of demonstration, that
 2      I,  12|    accident, for its premisses-a second characteristic distinguishing
 3      I,  13|         cause takes place in the second figure. Thus: let A be animal,
 4      I,  14|      most cases in this figure-a second proof that this figure is
 5      I,  14|       essence of a thing. In the second figure no affirmative conclusion
 6      I,  15|       either in the first or the second figure. If it is in the
 7      I,  15|        be affirmative: if in the second, either A or B indifferently,
 8      I,  16|    either in the first or in the second figure. Let us therefore
 9      I,  16|         equally be false.~In the second figure the premisses cannot
10      I,  17|    erroneous inference is in the second figure, both premisses cannot
11      I,  19|         proceed to infinity? The second question is as follows:
12      I,  19|          ascend to infinity? The second is the problem whether one
13      I,  21| primarily non-predicable. In the second figure the syllogism is,
14      I,  21|          figure as above, in the second as here, or in the third.
15      I,  21|      will proceed to display the second, proof by which will be
16      I,  21|          above. In the first and second figures the series terminates.
17      I,  21|         first figure, now in the second or third-even so the regress
18      I,  23|      inhere in C and D through a second common middle, and this
19      I,  25|       same degree as A-E (in the second proof), but A-D is better
20     II,  3 |       universal; e.g. all in the second figure are negative, none
21     II,  12|      earth intervenes.~To take a second example: assuming that the
22     II,  13|         the lower terms; for our second term will be the first of
23     II,  13|        of those which follow the second in a "contiguous" series,
24     II,  13|        is in all members of this second species, and likewise in