Book, Paragraph

 1      I, 5 |         established merely from the original premisses; others also are
 2      I, 16|      completed directly through the original premisses.~But if the premisses
 3      I, 23|             is false, and prove the original conclusion hypothetically
 4      I, 23|        ostensive syllogism, and the original conclusion is proved hypothetically,
 5      I, 23|         that is substituted for the original thesis; but the original
 6      I, 23|            original thesis; but the original thesis is reached by means
 7      I, 24|            subject proposed, or the original position will be begged.
 8      I, 25|        syllogism does not prove the original proposition.~So it is clear
 9      I, 26|            universal negatives: the original statement is destroyed,
10      I, 29|         proved-not the terms of the original problem, but the new terms
11      I, 32|         aforementioned figures, our original problem would be brought
12     II, 5 |            which was assumed in the original syllogism: e.g. suppose
13     II, 8 |        belong to some B: but in the original premiss it belonged to no
14     II, 8 |           belong to some C. But the original premiss is not yet refuted:
15     II, 9 |           belong to some C. But the original statement has not been refuted:
16     II, 10|           to no C.~Similarly if the original syllogism is negative. Suppose
17     II, 11|             The same results if the original proposition CA was negative:
18     II, 11|            refuted as well; for the original conclusion was that A belongs
19     II, 14|            the contradictory of the original conclusion. Also in the
20     II, 14|          belongs to some B, and the original premisses that C belongs
21     II, 14|           belongs to all B; and the original premisses are that C belongs
22     II, 14|            belongs to no B; and the original premisses that B belongs
23     II, 14|       belongs not to all B, and the original premisses that A belongs
24     II, 14|            belongs to no B, and the original premisses that A belongs
25     II, 14|          belongs to some B, and the original premisses that A belongs
26     II, 14|             A belongs to all B, the original premisses that A belongs
27     II, 14|       belongs not to all B, and the original premisses that C belongs
28     II, 14|         what is impossible. And the original premisses form the first
29     II, 14|            belongs to no B, and the original premisses that C belongs
30     II, 14|          belongs to some B, and the original premisses that C belongs
31     II, 16|            16~To beg and assume the original question is a species of
32     II, 16|            itself, then he begs the original question. This may be done
33     II, 16|           clear whether he begs the original question, but it is evident
34     II, 16|           belongs to the other, the original question is begged. For
35     II, 17|           impossibile, and when the original hypothesis is so related
36     II, 17|           connexion at all with the original assumption. Another case
37     II, 17|             would not depend on the original hypothesis. Or again trace
38     II, 17|            would result, though the original hypothesis were eliminated.
39     II, 17|            to be connected with the original terms: in this way it will
40     II, 17| impossibility is not related to the original terms, the false conclusion
41     II, 26|             term which embraces the original subject becomes the middle