Book, Paragraph

 1      I, 13|      simple assertion, the other a problematic. Consequently we must start
 2      I, 14|      converted after the manner of problematic propositions, the same syllogism
 3      I, 15|           proposition, the other a problematic, whenever the major premiss
 4      I, 15|           no syllogism, but if the problematic premiss is converted, a
 5      I, 15|     results in any way; but if the problematic premiss is converted, we
 6      I, 15|           is assertoric, the other problematic, whenever the minor premiss
 7      I, 15|      whenever the minor premiss is problematic a syllogism always results,
 8      I, 15|           premiss is universal and problematic, whether affirmative or
 9      I, 15|     universal, but assertoric, not problematic, and the minor is particular
10      I, 15|            minor is particular and problematic, whether both premisses
11      I, 15|           by the conversion of the problematic premiss, as has been shown
12      I, 15|          particular, negative, and problematic, e.g. if A belongs to all
13      I, 15|           negative or affirmative, problematic or assertoric, nohow is
14      I, 15|  particular or indefinite, whether problematic or assertoric, or the one
15      I, 15|          or assertoric, or the one problematic, the other assertoric. The
16      I, 16|            is necessary, the other problematic, there will be a syllogism
17      I, 16| affirmative the conclusion will be problematic, not assertoric, whether
18      I, 16|   necessary the conclusion will be problematic, not negative assertoric;
19      I, 16|   necessary the conclusion will be problematic negative, and assertoric
20      I, 16|            but it will establish a problematic negative, not an assertoric
21      I, 16|          For the major premiss was problematic, and further it is not possible
22      I, 16|            is negative, when it is problematic a syllogism is possible
23      I, 16|          premiss is universal, and problematic, whether affirmative or
24      I, 16|          necessary, the particular problematic, if the universal is negative
25      I, 16|       Similarly if the relation is problematic: so the terms may be used
26      I, 16|       assertoric the conclusion is problematic, but if the negative premiss
27      I, 16|   necessary the conclusion is both problematic and negative assertoric. [
28      I, 17|        whenever both premisses are problematic, no syllogism is possible,
29      I, 17|           is assertoric, the other problematic, if the affirmative is assertoric
30      I, 17|            is necessary, the other problematic. Here also we must understand
31      I, 17|        point out that the negative problematic proposition is not convertible,
32      I, 17|         belong to no A. Since then problematic affirmations are convertible
33      I, 17|        that its conclusion will be problematic because neither of the premisses
34      I, 17|           be proved that it is not problematic but necessary. Let A be
35      I, 17|          if both the premisses are problematic, no syllogism results.~
36      I, 18|           is assertoric, the other problematic, if the affirmative is assertoric
37      I, 18|        assertoric and the negative problematic no syllogism will be possible,
38      I, 18|         the affirmative premiss is problematic, and the negative assertoric,
39      I, 18|        being assertoric, the other problematic, nothing follows necessarily
40      I, 18|          as they stand, but if the problematic premiss is converted into
41      I, 18|         obtained by converting the problematic premiss into its complementary
42      I, 19|            is necessary, the other problematic, then if the negative is
43      I, 19|       drawn, not merely a negative problematic but also a negative assertoric
44      I, 19|           necessary, and the other problematic; i.e. suppose that A may
45      I, 19|      Clearly then we cannot draw a problematic conclusion; for that which
46      I, 19|           formed by converting the problematic premiss into its complementary
47      I, 19|            can the conclusion be a problematic negative proposition. For
48      I, 19|           possible to prove both a problematic and a negative assertoric
49      I, 19|           be drawn as above if the problematic premiss is converted into
50      I, 19|      proving not merely a negative problematic, but also a negative assertoric
51      I, 20|            one of the premisses is problematic. When the premisses are
52      I, 20|             When the premisses are problematic the conclusion will be problematic;
53      I, 20| problematic the conclusion will be problematic; and also when one premiss
54      I, 20|           also when one premiss is problematic, the other assertoric. But
55      I, 20|         First let the premisses be problematic and suppose that both A
56      I, 21|         premiss is pure, the other problematic, the conclusion will be
57      I, 21|             the conclusion will be problematic, not pure; and a syllogism
58      I, 21|   premisses in the first figure is problematic, the conclusion also (as
59      I, 21|     conclusion also (as we saw) is problematic. Similarly if the proposition
60      I, 21|         proposition BC is pure, AC problematic; or if AC is negative, BC
61      I, 21|       cases the conclusion will be problematic: for the first figure is
62      I, 21|      proved that if one premiss is problematic in that figure the conclusion
63      I, 21|            conclusion also will be problematic. But if the minor premiss
64      I, 21|        shall have not a pure but a problematic syllogistic conclusion.
65      I, 22|            is necessary, the other problematic, when the premisses are
66      I, 22|        premisses are affirmative a problematic affirmative conclusion can
67      I, 22|         affirmative is necessary a problematic negative can be inferred;
68      I, 22|    proposition is necessary both a problematic and a pure negative conclusion
69      I, 22|            is necessary, and AC is problematic. Again suppose one proposition
70      I, 22|        that the conclusion will be problematic: for when the premisses
71      I, 22|        conclusion (as we found) is problematic. But if the negative premiss
72      I, 22|      premiss is negative, if it is problematic we shall have a syllogism
73      I, 22|             the conclusion will be problematic, not pure; and also when
74      I, 22|            and universal, if it is problematic a syllogism can be formed
75      I, 22|         and when the conclusion is problematic, and when it is pure. It
76      I, 24|          in being necessary, pure, problematic. We must consider also the