NOTE.――There may be some doubt in the student’s mind as to the proposition “None but the brave deserve the fair,” really meaning “All the fair deserve the brave.” This doubt may be better satisfied by treating the exclusive in the second way as indicated on page 137, to wit: Negate the subject of the exclusive, then give it the form of the regular “E.” This results in “No not-brave persons deserve the fair,” which, after first converting and then obverting becomes, “All the fair deserve the brave.” _Arguments Containing Individual Propositions._ (4) “George Washington never told a lie, but you, when tempted, yielded with no qualms of conscience.” Completing, and arranging logically gives: E George Washington never told a lie, ――――――――――――――――― A You _did_ tell a lie, ――― E ∴ You (in this respect) are not like George Washington. ――― ――――――――――――――――― Treated properly this argument proves to be valid; the student, however, is apt to deal with such in this wise: O George Washington never told a lie, ――― I You did tell a lie, ――― O ∴ You (in this respect) are not like George Washington. ――― ――――――――――――――――― When placed in this mood the argument is invalid; since the major term, which is distributed in the conclusion, is not distributed in the premise where it occurs (_illicit major_). It is the tendency on the part of students to classify as particular, a proposition which has as its subject a _singular term_. Such propositions we have learned to call _individual_. The cause of this tendency is easily explained: Consider the propositions, (1) “This man is mortal”; (2) “Some men are mortal”; (3) “All men are mortal.” In the first instance “_mortal_” refers to the subject “_man_” which is narrower in significance than “_some men_” to which “mortal” of the second proposition refers. In consequence, it is very natural to infer that if, “_Some men are mortal_,” is particular, then, “_This man is mortal_,” is likewise particular. The error springs from a wrong conception of particular as used in logic; the content of the term has little to do with _extension_, but is chiefly concerned with _indefiniteness_. A particular proposition is one in which the predicate refers to only a part of an _indefinite_ subject. If the subject is referred to as a whole, and this whole is more or less definite, then the proposition is universal. Since “mortal” refers to the _whole_ of the definite term “_this man_,” as positively as it refers to the whole of “_all men_,” there is as much justification in calling the _first_ proposition universal as there is in calling the _third_ universal. _It may be remembered, then, that logicians class as universal all individual propositions._ _Arguments Containing Partitive Propositions._