Book, Paragraph

 1      I,  1 |         which are primary and true: (b) reasoning, on the other
 2      I,  17|        genera, the formulae being ‘A:B = C:D" (e.g. as knowledge
 3      I,  17|          sensation), and "As A is in B, so is C in D" (e.g. as
 4    III,  2 |            qualification better than B, then also the best of the
 5    III,  2 |           the best of the members of B; e.g. if Man be better than
 6    III,  2 |              better than the best in B, then also A is better than
 7    III,  2 |           then also A is better than B without qualification; e.g.
 8    III,  2 |            if A is desirable without B, but not B without A: power (
 9    III,  2 |         desirable without B, but not B without A: power (e.g.)
10    III,  3 |            of A to the same thing as B makes the whole more desirable
11    III,  3 |            than does the addition of B. You must, however, beware
12    III,  5 |           added to the same thing as B imparts to the whole such
13    III,  5 |              more marked degree than B, or if, when added to a
14     IV,  6 |            use: e.g. supposing A and B to have a like claim to
15     IV,  6 |            instance, supposing A and B to have a like claim to
16     IV,  6 |    denotation than the differentia; (b) that in rendering the essence
17     IV,  6 |              its genus, if A follows B universally, whereas B does
18     IV,  6 |       follows B universally, whereas B does not follow A universally-as
19      V,  2 |       attribution of A (property) to B (subject) fails to be more
20      V,  6 |          living creature".~Secondly (b) look from the point of
21      V,  8 |            others as well.~Secondly (b) for destructive purposes,
22      V,  8 |             of temperance.~Secondly (b) for destructive purposes,
23     VI,  13|              defined it as an "A and B", or as a "product of A
24     VI,  13|            or as a "product of A and B" or as an "A+B". If he defines
25     VI,  13|              of A and B" or as an "A+B". If he defines it as and
26     VI,  13|              If he defines it as and B’, the definition will be
27     VI,  13|          being defined is not "A and B" but the "product of A and
28     VI,  13|            but the "product of A and B", look and see in the first
29     VI,  13|             the first place if A and B cannot in the nature of
30     VI,  13|              defined an object as "A+B", the first thing to be
31     VI,  13|          thing to be said is that "A+B" means the same either as "
32     VI,  13|            the same either as "A and B", or as the "product of
33     VI,  13|             as the "product of A and B." for "honey+water" means
34     VI,  13|              then, he admits that "A+B" is + B’ is the same as
35     VI,  13|            he admits that "A+B" is + B’ is the same as either of
36     VI,  13|            could be said to exist "+ B." Thus e.g. supposing the
37     VI,  13|             no way true of the A and B in question, clearly the
38     VI,  13|             way in which A can exist B’. If, however, among the
39     VI,  13| distinguished, it be true that A and B are each found in the same
40    VII,  1 |           statement made, that A and B are the same, but also whether
41    VII,  3 |              A defines a better than B defines and B is a definition
42    VII,  3 |            better than B defines and B is a definition of so too
43    VII,  3 |            claim to define a is like B’s to define B, and B defines
44    VII,  3 |              a is like B’s to define B, and B defines B, then A
45    VII,  3 |            like B’s to define B, and B defines B, then A too defines
46    VII,  3 |              define B, and B defines B, then A too defines a. This