Book, Paragraph

 1      I, 15|            one of the premisses is assertoric, the other problematic,
 2      I, 15|      particular is affirmative and assertoric, there will be a perfect
 3      I, 15|          premiss is universal, but assertoric, not problematic, and the
 4      I, 15|           premiss is universal and assertoric, whether positive or negative,
 5      I, 15|          the particular premiss is assertoric and negative, there cannot
 6      I, 15|        affirmative, problematic or assertoric, nohow is a syllogism possible.
 7      I, 15|             whether problematic or assertoric, or the one problematic,
 8      I, 15|         one problematic, the other assertoric. The demonstration is the
 9      I, 16|           will be problematic, not assertoric, whether the premisses are
10      I, 16|          problematic, not negative assertoric; but when the negative is
11      I, 16|          problematic negative, and assertoric negative, whether the premisses
12      I, 16|       problematic negative, not an assertoric negative. For the major
13      I, 16|          not possible to prove the assertoric conclusion per impossibile.
14      I, 16|        conclusion will be negative assertoric: e.g. if it is not possible
15      I, 16|    necessary, there will not be an assertoric conclusion. The demonstration
16      I, 16|            the negative premiss is assertoric the conclusion is problematic,
17      I, 16|           problematic and negative assertoric. [It is clear also that
18      I, 17|            But when one premiss is assertoric, the other problematic,
19      I, 17| problematic, if the affirmative is assertoric no syllogism is possible,
20      I, 17|          the universal negative is assertoric a conclusion can always
21      I, 17|        neither of the premisses is assertoric; and this must be either
22      I, 18|           18~But if one premiss is assertoric, the other problematic,
23      I, 18| problematic, if the affirmative is assertoric and the negative problematic
24      I, 18|      problematic, and the negative assertoric, we shall have a syllogism.
25      I, 18|            are negative, one being assertoric, the other problematic,
26      I, 18|         affirmative proposition is assertoric, whether universal or particular,
27      I, 18|            negative proposition is assertoric, a conclusion can be drawn
28      I, 18|    relations are negative, and the assertoric proposition is universal,
29      I, 18|            negative proposition is assertoric, but particular, no syllogism
30      I, 19|    problematic but also a negative assertoric conclusion; but if the affirmative
31      I, 19|    conclusion cannot be a negative assertoric or a negative necessary
32      I, 19|            laid down either in the assertoric or in the necessary mode.
33      I, 19|         problematic and a negative assertoric proposition (the proof proceeds
34      I, 19|   problematic, but also a negative assertoric proposition; but if the
35      I, 19|           mode of the premisses is assertoric or necessary. And it is
36      I, 20|          is problematic, the other assertoric. But when the other premiss
37      I, 20|            be neither necessary or assertoric; but if it is negative the
38      I, 20|          will result in a negative assertoric proposition, as above. In
39      I, 20|            terms as in the case of assertoric propositions. Suppose that