Book, Paragraph

 1      I,  5 |     the converse of this last statement does not hold: for to show
 2     II,  1 |        caused either by false statement or by transgression of the
 3     II,  2 |   will be obvious whether the statement is true or false; e.g. if
 4     II,  3 |     if we want to establish a statement, we shall show that in one
 5     II,  3 |      if we are overthrowing a statement, we shall show that in one
 6     II,  3 |     course, in overthrowing a statement there is no need to start
 7     II,  3 |    admission, either when the statement asserts or when it denies
 8     II,  3 |     Whereas in establishing a statement we ought to secure a preliminary
 9     II,  5 |     opponent into the kind of statement against which we shall be
10     II,  5 |    down, arrives at a certain statement and then tries to demolish
11     II,  5 |   then tries to demolish that statement: for when once this has
12     II,  5 |      any one who has made any statement whatever has in a certain
13     II,  5 |  statements, inasmuch as each statement has a number of necessary
14     II,  5 |   whatever kind, the original statement is demolished as well. But
15     II,  6 |       then even supposing his statement does not distinguish whether
16     II,  8 |  follow upon the other in the statement made: whereas if the one
17     II,  8 |       as well in the original statement.~You should look also into
18    III,  6 |       possible to overthrow a statement in only one way; e.g. if
19    III,  6 |     to demolish an indefinite statement in one way only, whereas
20    III,  6 |        on the other hand, the statement made be definite, it will
21    III,  6 |     shall have demolished the statement in question. If the statement
22    III,  6 | statement in question. If the statement be made still more definite,
23     IV,  2 |      a man to bring forward a statement of this kind as well, e.g.
24     IV,  4 |   possibly not even the first statement would be generally considered
25      V,  1 |    arise, as in the case of a statement that it is a property of
26      V,  1 | problems; as in the case of a statement that it is a property of
27      V,  2 |        could not be a correct statement of a property of "animal".
28      V,  3 |       this distinction in his statement, and so the property would
29      V,  5 |     actual time of making the statement.~Next, for destructive purposes,
30     VI,  4 |    not defined it at all.~The statement that a definition has not
31    VII,  1 |     results directly from the statement made, that A and B are the
32    VII,  3 |       need only make the bare statement that to reason to a thing’
33    VII,  5 |    certain case, the original statement has been demolished. Moreover,
34   VIII,  1 |     lie too near the original statement and so he foresees what
35   VIII,  2 |       those who object to the statement that "the greater the good,
36   VIII,  5 |    either case. If, then, the statement laid down by the answerer
37   VIII,  5 |    always the opposite of the statement laid down. If, on the other
38   VIII,  5 |      s conclusion. For if the statement laid down by the answerer
39   VIII,  5 |        on the other hand, the statement laid down by the answerer
40   VIII,  5 |      3) Likewise, too, if the statement laid down by the answerer
41   VIII,  13| universally the contradictory statement. Again, fifthly, suppose
42   VIII,  13|       that this contradictory statement that is opposite to the
43   VIII,  14|  entirely universal, e.g. the statement that "there cannot be one