Book, Paragraph

 1      I, 6 |      impossibile, as in the former cases. But if R belongs to no
 2      I, 6 |       exposition, as in the former cases. But if one term is affirmative,
 3      I, 8 |           not result alike in both cases, the only difference being
 4      I, 8 |          convertible alike in both cases, and we should give the
 5      I, 12|          is necessary. But in both cases, whether the syllogisms
 6      I, 13|           in form, as in the other cases.~
 7      I, 14|    conclusion as before, as in the cases given at the beginning.~
 8      I, 14|            terms common to all the cases under consideration "animal" - "
 9      I, 15|          other affirmative, in all cases there will be an imperfect
10      I, 16|          terms may be used for all cases.~Clearly then from what
11      I, 17|         all D, but because in some cases it belongs necessarily,
12      I, 19|          are so related, there are cases in which B necessarily will
13      I, 21|           the two is pure; in both cases the conclusion will be problematic:
14      I, 29|         terms in question. In both cases the same inquiry is involved.
15      I, 29| impossibile will always and in all cases be from the consequents
16      I, 29|    Similarly with the rest. In all cases it is necessary to find
17      I, 30|          method is the same in all cases, in philosophy, in any art
18      I, 31|            about its genus, nor in cases in which it is unknown whether
19      I, 31|          nor is it useful in those cases in which it is thought to
20      I, 32|            We are deceived in such cases because something necessary
21      I, 34|     evident then that in all these cases the fallacy arises from
22      I, 36|            This holds in the other cases too, in which the thesis
23      I, 36|         contraries, not in oblique cases, e.g. of man, of a good,
24      I, 36|   understood with reference to the cases of each term-either the
25      I, 40|             Similarly in all other cases.~
26     II, 14|         method is the same in both cases. Everything which is concluded
27     II, 21|             Similarly in all other cases.~By a knowledge of the universal
28     II, 21|       particular. Similarly in the cases stated above. The error
29     II, 23|          an enumeration of all the cases.~Such is the syllogism which
30     II, 24|           is obtained from similar cases, e.g. that the war against
31     II, 24|           C and to D (for both are cases of making war upon one’s
32     II, 24|        produced by several similar cases. Clearly then to argue by
33     II, 24|            from all the particular cases proves (as we saw) that
34     II, 24|            from all the particular cases.~
35     II, 25|           few. For in any of these cases it turns out that we approach