Book, Paragraph

 1      I, 4 | particularity with reference to the minor term affirmatively: but
 2      I, 4 |          posited in relation to the minor term, or the terms are related
 3      I, 4 |         contained and that term the minor which comes under the middle.
 4      I, 4 |         posited with respect to the minor term either affirmatively
 5      I, 4 |    affirmative or negative, and the minor premiss is negative and
 6      I, 4 |            a syllogism, whether the minor premiss be indefinite or
 7      I, 4 |           of all and of none of the minor, to some of which the middle
 8      I, 4 |           with a universal negative minor premiss. A similar proof
 9      I, 5 |            lies near the middle, by minor that which is further away
10      I, 5 |             and particularly to the minor and in a manner opposite
11      I, 5 |    particular statement. But if the minor premiss is universal, and
12      I, 6 |             from the middle, by the minor that which is nearer to
13      I, 6 |          the major is negative, the minor affirmative, there will
14      I, 6 |            be possible whenever the minor term is affirmative. For
15      I, 6 |           major is negative and the minor affirmative there will be
16      I, 6 |             converted.~But when the minor is negative, there will
17      I, 6 |          other particular. When the minor is related universally to
18      I, 7 |         always results relating the minor to the major term, e.g.
19      I, 9 |           is not necessary, but the minor is necessary, the conclusion
20      I, 10|            would be obtained if the minor premiss were negative: for
21      I, 14|           is clear then that if the minor premiss is negative, or
22      I, 14|             being universal and the minor particular, e.g. A is possible
23      I, 14|            the major premiss is the minor universal, whether both
24      I, 14|            possible for none of the minor and must belong to all of
25      I, 14|          belongs necessarily to the minor; "animal"- "white" - "garment",
26      I, 14|          major should belong to the minor. It is clear then that if
27      I, 14|            should belong to all the minor and not possible that it
28      I, 15|           defined; but whenever the minor premiss indicates possibility
29      I, 15|           to any, or to all, of the minor. For if this is so, we say
30      I, 15|            syllogisms result if the minor premiss states simple belonging:
31      I, 15|            middle "moving", the the minor "man". The premisses then
32      I, 15|            our terms better.~If the minor premiss is negative and
33      I, 15|            not belong to B, and the minor premiss indicates that B
34      I, 15|           problematic, whenever the minor premiss is problematic a
35      I, 15|            not problematic, and the minor is particular and problematic,
36      I, 15|       positive or negative, and the minor particular, negative, and
37      I, 15|      particular premiss. But if the minor premiss is universal, and
38      I, 15|          always results, but if the minor is universal nothing at
39      I, 16|          perfect syllogism when the minor premiss is necessary. If
40      I, 16|         these premisses. But if the minor premiss is negative, when
41      I, 16|     premisses are negative, and the minor is necessary. The same terms
42      I, 16|     negative syllogism, e.g. BC the minor premiss, or the universal
43      I, 16|          same as before. But if the minor premiss is universal, and
44      I, 17|            premiss is negative, the minor affirmative, or if both
45      I, 18|            C. Similarly also if the minor premiss is negative. But
46      I, 19|           proof can be given if the minor premiss is negative. Again
47      I, 19|            figure. Similarly if the minor premiss is negative. But
48      I, 21|             problematic. But if the minor premiss BC is negative,
49      I, 22|             to some B. But when the minor premiss is negative, if
50      I, 22|             the third. But when the minor premiss is negative and
51      I, 28|           the first figure with its minor premiss negative. If attributes
52      I, 45|          premiss which concerns the minor extreme must be converted
53     II, 7 |          the universal concerns the minor extreme, proof will be possible,
54     II, 8 |       premisses in reference to the minor extreme. Similarly if the
55     II, 9 |         will be the contrary of the minor premiss of the first, if
56     II, 9 |            the contradictory of the minor premiss. A similar proof
57     II, 10|           premiss must refer to the minor extreme. But we found that
58     II, 10|          premiss which concerns the minor extreme is alway refuted
59     II, 10|          premiss which concerns the minor extreme is always refuted
60     II, 10|          premiss which concerns the minor through the middle figure.~
61     II, 24|       syllogistic conclusion to the minor term, whereas argument by