_Use the middle term as the subject of an A proposition, and then as the predicate of an E proposition._ This would necessitate a negative conclusion in which the major term is distributed. But the major term is not distributed in the major premise, hence the fallacy. Illustration in which the distributed terms are underscored: All men are mortal, ――― No trees are men, ――――― ――― ――――――――――――――――――― ∴ No trees are mortal. ――――― ―――――― _Illicit Minor._ To illustrate this fallacy one may use _the middle term as the subject of two A premises_. This would give an A conclusion in which the subject is distributed. But this same term is not distributed in its premise because here it is used as the predicate of an A. Illustration: All earnest students study, ―――――――――――――――― All earnest students desire to succeed, ―――――――――――――――― ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ∴ All who desire to succeed study. ――――――――――――――――――――――――― =11. REVIEW QUESTIONS.= (1) Distinguish between inference and reasoning. (2) Define inference. Mediate inference. (3) Illustrate the difference between mediate and immediate inference. (4) Explain by illustration the use of the middle term. (5) Exemplify the syllogism. (6) State the rules of the syllogism. (7) From the attending syllogisms select the three terms: (1) All patriotic citizens vote, You are a patriotic citizen, ∴ You should vote. (2) No honest man would misrepresent, (but) John Smith did misrepresent, ∴ John Smith is not honest. (8) Symbolize the foregoing syllogisms. (9) Illustrate by syllogisms the fallacy of four terms. (10) Indicate by circles that a valid conclusion cannot be drawn from four terms. (11) Why must a syllogism have three and only three propositions? (12) Indicate how the three propositions of an argument may be designated. What is the logical arrangement? (13) Show that an ambiguous middle amounts to a fallacy of four terms. (14) Explain and illustrate undistributed middle, illicit major, illicit minor. (15) Exemplify the fallacies of question “14” by using circles. (16) Explain by circles why a conclusion cannot be drawn from two negatives. (17) Make clear that a negative conclusion must follow, if one premise be negative. (18) State and explain the principle which underlies the rule, “If the conclusion is negative one premise must be negative.” (19) Prove by the process of elimination that no conclusion can be drawn from two particulars. (20) In a way similar to that of question “19” show that if one premise be particular the conclusion must be particular. (21) State and explain Aristotle’s dictum. (22) State the canons of the syllogism. (23) Symbolize and explain by circles the three canons.