has been compared to a part of the middle term, and another to the whole of it, they must have both been compared to the same. If the middle term is ambiguous, there are, in reality, two middle terms in sense, though but one in sound. An ambiguous middle term is either an equivocal term used in different senses in the two premises, e. g., Light is contrary to darkness; or a term not distributed. II. Illicit Process.-No term must be distributed in the conclusion which was not distributed in one of the premises, for that would be to employ the whole of a term in the conclusion, when you had employed only a part of it in the premise; e. g., in the following there is an illicit process of the major term : All quadrupeds are animals... A bird is not a quadruped; therefore......... A bird is not an animal Every Y is Z; In the following there is an illicit process of the minor term : All independent persons deserve the elective suffrage; They deserve the elective suffrage. If this conclusion is proved, the minor premise must imply that all Englishmen are independent. But this is not the case; and therefore the argument is fallacious, from the insufficient induction of the minor premise. III. Negative Premises. A fish is not a quadruped.. A bird is not a quadruped No X is Y; No Z is Y; No X is Z. Here both premises being negative, the middle is not said to agree with either of the other terms. IV. Petitio Principii is a name given to those fallacies in which the premise appears manifestly to be the same as the conclusion, or else is actually proved from the conclusion; as, to attempt to prove the existence of God from the Bible, when the Bible, since it professes to be a revelation from him, assumes his existence; or as when you prove the necessity of regeneration from the depravity of man, and then prove the depravity of man from the necessity of regeneration. This is arguing in a circle, and is sometimes called begging the question. In all cases of this kind there is an unduly assumed premise. V. Ignoratio Elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion. This fallacy consists in substituting for the legitimate conclusion one that resembles it; as, Cleon urged the justice of putting certain revolters to death. Diodotus remarked, in reply, that this was nothing to the purpose, since the Athenians were not sitting in judgment, but in deliberation, of which the proper end is expediency. SECTION CCCCLXXV.-EXAMPLES OF FALLACIES. 1. Projectors are unfit to be trusted; this man has formed a project; therefore he is unfit to be trusted. This, coming under the head of an ambiguous middle, is what is called Fallacia figuræ Dictionis. It is built on the Grammatical structure of language, from men usually taking for granted that Paronymous words, i. e., those belonging to each other, as the substantive, adjective, verb, &c., of the same root, have a precisely corresponding meaning, which is by no means universally the case. 2. A sophist persuades the multitude that a member of the House of Commons is bound to be guided in all points by the opinion of his constituents, and, in short, to be merely their spokesman; whereas law and custom, which may be regarded as fixing the meaning of the term, require no such thing, but enjoin the representative to act according to the best of his own judgment, and on his own responsibility. The fallacy of this opinion rests on the fact that the Etymological meaning of the word represent is not the same with its customary meaning. 3. Three and two are two numbers; five is three and two; therefore five is two numbers. Here three and two are ambiguous, signifying, in the major premise, "taken distinctly;" in the minor, taken together." 4. Whatever is universally believed is true; the existence of God is not universally believed; therefore it is not true. Here the fallacy consists in an "illicit process of the major term.” 5. What is bought in the market is eaten; raw meat is bought in the market; therefore raw meat is eaten." Here we have the fallacia accidentis. The middle term is used in one premise (the major) to signify something considered simply in itself; in the other premise (the minor), to signify that its accidents are taken into account with it. 6. "To allow every man an unbounded freedom must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty, perfectly unlimited, of expressing his sentiments." Here we have the fallacy of the petitio principii. In the latter part of the sentence, the very point is assumed as proof which is asserted in the first part; in other words, the premise and the conclusion are identical. The English language is perhaps the more suitable for the fallacy of the petitio principii, from its being framed from two distinct languages, and thus abounding in synonymous expressions which have no resemblance in sound and no connection in etymology; so that a sophist may bring forward a proposition expressed in words of Saxon origin, and give as a reason for it the very same proposition stated in words of Norman origin, as in the above example. 7. The Royal Society were imposed on by being asked to account for the fact that a vessel of water received no addition to its weight by a live fish being put into it. While they were seeking for the cause, they forgot to ascertain the fact, and thus admitted, without suspicion, a mere fiction. In this case the fallacy consists of an undue assumption of a premise. QUESTIONS UNDER CHAPTER IV. 1. What is an argument? 2. What is the conclusion? 3. What are the premises? 4. Give an example of an argument; and state which are the two premises, and which the conclusion. 5. Are both premises always expressed? 6. Of how many parts does an argument consist? and what are they? and what are they called? 7. In what order are they stated? and what conjunctions are employed in stating them ? 8. What are arguments called which are stated without the third proposition? 9. How is the word argument employed in common discourse? 10. What is a syllogism? Give an example. 11.. How many terms has a syllogism? Name and describe them. 12. How many propositions has a syllogism? Name and describe them. 13. Mention the canons and the rules. 14. What is the mode of a syllogism? How many combinations are there? and in how many can a syllogism be expressed? 15. What is the figure of a syllogism? 16. Describe the first figure, and give an illustration. there? Give examples of each. What two kinds of conditional syllogisms are 22. What is a sorites? Give an example. 23. What is a dilemma? 24. Describe the three classes of dilemma, and give an example of each. 25. What are analogical propositions? and what is an argument from analogy? Give an instance. 28. What is example? Give an instance. 29. What is a fallacy? and what are several kinds of fallacies? 30. Give some account of the undistributed middle, with an example; and of an illicit process, with an example; and of negative premises, with an example; and of a petitio principii, with an example; and of an ignoratio, with an example. 31. Give some promiscuous examples of fallacies. EXERCISES UNDER PART V. SECTION CCCCLXXV*.-LOGICAL ANALYSIS. LOGICAL ANALYSIS is that process by which the Logical Forms in a passage are distinguished, named, and described. EXAMPLES. 1. The art, the literature, and the eloquence of all times have united in paying a common homage to the Bible. The whole sentence is a PROPOSITION. The art, the literature, and the eloquence of all times is the SUBJECT. Have united in paying a common homage to the Bible is the PREDI CATE. The subject and the predicate are the TERMS. 2. Gold is a metal, often found pure in the shape of dust, is heavy, and is coined into sovereigns. Gold is a SPECIES; metal is the GENUS; often found pure in the shape of dust is the DIFFERENTIA; heavy is a PROPERTY; coined into sovereigns is an ACCIDENT. These are PREDICABLES. 3. Whatever exhibits marks of contrivance and design is the work of an intelligent author. The world exhibits marks of contrivance and design; therefore the world is the work of an intelligent author. Here we have three propositions. The first is the MAJOR PREMISE; the second is the MINOR PREMISE; the third is the CONCLUSION. The work of an intelligent author is the MAJOR TERM. The world is the MINOR TERM. Exhibits marks of contrivance and design is the MIDDLE TERM. Analyse the following passage, and state which are propositions; which are the Logical subjects; which are Logical predicates; and mention any other Logical forms. This evil, of positively bad reasoning, of concluding what cannot be justly concluded, arises from a want of due acquaintance with the instrument necessarily used in every process of reasoning, namely, language. And hence appears the importance of those two studies which teach us to analyse, logic and grammar. Language is, indeed, a wonderful instrument; but the very facility of using it with a certain degree of effect, for we all talk and occasionally argue, is apt to conceal from us the difficulty of acquiring a perfect command of it. We constantly find persons both speaking and writing vaguely using words in different senses, or in no well-defined sense at all, without being aware of it; and, as never having analysed the process of correct reasoning, arguing in a manner at random, and supposing that to be proof, or an answer to an objection, which in reality is not so. These are faults for which the study of grammar and of logic is the appropriate remedy. In both we take language to pieces, examine its structure, and learn to appreciate and recognise those defects to which it is the most liable. In logic, especially, we learn what may be called the skeleton of reasoning, that simple form, which, however concealed under the more ornamental form of our common style of talking or writing, as the skeleton is concealed by our flesh, can never be really departed from without involving a fallacy. Knowing this skeleton accurately, we can in an instant feel, even through the covering, the flesh, so to speak, of our ordinary language, whether all the bones are in their right places; nay, we know where to suspect disorder, and, by pass ing our probe at once to the suspected part, we can see whether or no all is sound.-ARNOLD. SYNTHESIS. 1. Compose sentences in which there shall be various terms. 2. Compose sentences in which there shall be various predicables. 3. Compose a logical definition of some term. 4. Compose sentences in which there shall be a universal affirmative and a universal negative; and a particular affirmative and a particular negative. 5. Compose a simple proposition and a complex proposition. 6. State a syllogism, and mention which is the major premise; and the minor; and the conclusion; and which is the major term, the minor term, and the middle term. 7. Compose sentences containing other logical forms. PART VI. SYNTACTICAL FORMS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. CHAPTER I. SECTION CCCCLXXVI.-DEFINITIONS. SYNTAX, from the Greek oúv, with, ráži, arrangement, treats of the arrangement and combination of words in propositions and sentences. Etymology deals with the forms of single words, and teaches the office and power of the different parts of speech. Syntax deals with groups of words, and teaches how to combine the several parts of speech together in propositions and sentences. SYNTACTICAL FORMS are combinations of words viewed only in their relation to each other, according to the laws of the language. Thus, "Of Government" is a syntactical form, in which the preposition governs the noun. "A wise son" is a syntactical form, in which the article "a" and the adjective "wise" belong to the substantive 66 son." Syntactical forms are either sentences, or members, or clauses, or phrases, or any two words related to each other in the way of agreement and government. CONCORD is the agreement which one word has with another in Gender, Number, Case, or Person. GOVERNMENT is that power which one word has over another in directing its Mode, Tense, or Case. CONVERTIBILITY.-In Syntax, one part of speech is often used for another, and may therefore be said to be convertible, as in this example, To err is human error is human. The combination to err is an Infinitive verb, and yet it is converted from its primary use into a noun. In like manner, the Participle is used as a substantive; as, Erring is dangerous error is dangerous. The Adjective is converted into a substantive; as, The evils of life; the goods of fortune. So an Adverb, a Preposition, or a Conjunction can be used 41 [ENG. LANG. 23.] |