_Arranged, and antecedent and consequent indicated._ If one believes in the tenets of the democratic party (antecedent), then he should vote for its candidates (consequent); And A does believe in these tenets, ∴ He should vote for its candidates (I have asked him to vote for me). The minor premise affirms the antecedent and thus the argument is valid according to rule. _Reduced to the categorical_: M A One who believes in the tenets of the democratic party should ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― G vote for its candidates, S M A A believes in these tenets, ― S G A ∴ A should vote for its candidates. ― { A Reduced to the categorical gives mood { A in the first figure and this { A we know to be valid. (3) “If the weather had not been pleasant, I could not have come; but as the weather is pleasant, here I am.” _Arranged and antecedent and consequent indicated_: If the weather had not been pleasant (antecedent), I could not have come (consequent); The weather is pleasant, ∴ I have come (here I am). The minor premise _denies_ the antecedent and consequently the argument is invalid according to the rule. (An affirmative minor premise denies a negative antecedent.) _Reduced to the categorical_: E Unpleasant weather would not permit me to come, E This weather is not unpleasant, A ∴ This weather enabled me to come. Fallacy of two negative premises. (4) “If one pays his debts, he will not be ‘black-listed’; but since you are ‘black-listed,’ I conclude that you have not paid your debts.” _Arranged logically and antecedent and consequent indicated_: If one pays his debts (antecedent), he will not be “black-listed” (consequent); You are “black-listed,” ∴ You have not paid your debts. The minor premise denies the consequent hence the argument is valid. _Reduced to categorical form_: G M E No one who pays his debts is black listed, ―――――――――――――――――――――― ―――――――――――― S M A You are black listed, ――― S G E ∴ You have not paid your debts. ――― ――――――――――――――― { E The mood { A in the second figure is valid. { E (5) “Men would do right for the sake of themselves, if they appreciated the law of retribution; but they never think of that.” _Arranged, completed, and tested_: If they appreciated the law of retribution (antecedent), men would do right for the sake of themselves (consequent); But they do not appreciate the law of retribution (never think of that), Hence they do not do right for the sake of themselves. Fallacy of denying the antecedent. _Reduced to the categorical_: