This is complex because there are two antecedents as well as two consequents, and destructive because the conclusion is negative. Briefly: (1) A simple dilemma is one where either the antecedent or consequent is repeated; whereas if neither is repeated the dilemma is complex. (2) A constructive dilemma contains an affirmative conclusion; while a destructive dilemma uses a negative conclusion. (3) A simple dilemma has as its conclusion a categorical proposition; whereas the conclusion of a complex dilemma is always disjunctive. If the number of antecedents and consequents be increased, a trilemma, tetralemma, etc., may result. ILLUSTRATION――_Trilemma._ If A is B, W is X; and if C is D, Y is Z; and if E is F, U is V, But either A is B, or C is D, or E is F, Hence either W is X, or Y is Z, or U is V. Some authorities define a dilemma as a syllogism in which the “major-hypothetical” has _more than one antecedent_ while the “minor” must be disjunctive. This viewpoint necessarily _excludes_ the second form or the simple destructive dilemma. The weight of authority, however, appears to favor the classification here recommended. =15. THE ONE RULE INVOLVED IN DILEMMATIC ARGUMENTS.= Since the major premise of the dilemma is hypothetical, the rule for testing such would of necessity be the hypothetical rule; namely, “The minor premise must either affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent.” As this rule and the fallacies incident to it have been treated in detail, further discussion is unnecessary. =16. ILLUSTRATIVE EXERCISE TESTING DISJUNCTIVE AND DILEMMATIC ARGUMENTS.= (1) If the arithmetic contains useful facts, it will help to good citizenship; and if it trains the powers of reason, it will help to good citizenship, But the arithmetic either contains useful facts or trains the powers of reason, Hence it will help to good citizenship. This is a simple constructive dilemma in which the minor premise affirms the antecedents. The argument is, therefore, valid since it conforms to the rules of the hypothetical syllogism. The fact that the minor premise may not be a perfect disjunctive does not invalidate the conclusion, inasmuch as it is perfectly obvious that if the arithmetic fulfilled both the requirements of the antecedents, the conclusion would still obtain. It may, therefore, be inferred that if the dilemma conforms to the rules of the hypothetical argument, it is valid, though the disjunctive proposition which it contains may not be strictly logical. (2) A man is either temperate or intemperate; and, as I have seen you drunk several times, I conclude that you are intemperate. _Arranged logically._ A man is either temperate or intemperate, You are not temperate, ∴ You are intemperate.