Book, Paragraph

 1      I, 1 |           of a syllogism in either case; for both the demonstrator
 2      I, 3 |            negative statements the case is different. Whatever is
 3      I, 3 |           white. For in the former case the one term necessarily
 4      I, 3 |    affirmation always and in every case, whatever the terms to which
 5      I, 7 |            will be possible in the case of the negative. For if
 6      I, 8 |          the same manner as in the case of simple predication. But
 7      I, 10|          it has been proved in the case of the first figure that
 8      I, 11|            has been proved, in the case of the first figure, that
 9      I, 13|         The same holds good in the case of particular affirmations:
10      I, 14|     syllogism results in the first case, an imperfect in the second.
11      I, 16|         Terms applicable in either case to illustrate the positive
12      I, 19| established, since we have shown a case in which B necessarily does
13      I, 20| arrangement of the terms as in the case of assertoric propositions.
14      I, 21|           same as was given in the case of universal premisses,
15      I, 23|           syllogisms: for in every case the syllogism leads up to
16      I, 25|            same terms. But in that case there is not one but several
17      I, 25|            inserted: but in either case it follows that the relations
18      I, 29|        proved. We must find in the case of possible relations, as
19      I, 35|           words, as happens in the case mentioned.~
20      I, 36|        understood according to the case of the noun. For we state
21      I, 38|          object of sense: in every case in which an addition is
22     II, 1 |  conclusion is not possible in the case of universal syllogisms
23     II, 1 |            is possible also in the case of particular syllogisms.~
24     II, 4 |            It is clear also in the case of particular syllogisms
25     II, 11|      supposition is false: in that case it is true that A belongs
26     II, 13|      belongs to all B. But in that case it is true that A belongs
27     II, 17|           is made primarily in the case of a reductio ad impossibile,
28     II, 17|          he use the formula in the case of an ostensive proof; for
29     II, 17|            can only be used in the case of a reductio ad impossibile,
30     II, 17|           or not. The most obvious case of the irrelevance of an
31     II, 17|       original assumption. Another case is where the impossible
32     II, 21|          impossible.~In the former case, where the middle term does
33     II, 27|            always refutable in any case: for a syllogism can never