(7) Fallacies in thought――(also fallacies of assumption). Accident. Converse accident. Made possible by exceptions. Accident and converse accident distinguished from composition and division. Comparative résumé. Irrelevant conclusion (_ignoratio elenchi_). _Argumentum ad populum._ _Argumentum ad hominem._ _Argumentum ad ignorantiam._ _Argumentum ad baculum._ _Argumentum ad verecundiam._ _Non sequitur_ (false consequent). False cause. Complex question. Begging the question (_petitio principii_). Assumption of premise. Reasoning in a circle. Question begging epithets and appellations. =9. SUMMARY.= (1) Logic as a science makes known the laws and forms of thought and as an art suggests conditions which must be fulfilled in order to think rightly. A discussion of the second phase of the definition would be incomplete without a consideration of the negative aspect as well as the positive. Such a viewpoint makes evident the question “What errors must be avoided in order to reason correctly?” An answer to this question is given under the caption of Logical Fallacies. (2) A logical fallacy is any error in reasoning which has the appearance of correctness. A fallacy which deceives the writer or speaker himself is termed a paralogism, whereas a fallacy formed for the express purpose of deceiving another is denominated a sophism. It was the pagan teacher Socrates who taught modern thought to frown upon all forms of sophism; these exist to-day much as they did in the olden time. (3) Because of disagreement as to definition, and because of inability to prevent an overlapping of species, any logical division of the deductive fallacies must be faulty. In the division of the deductive fallacies, this treatise retains the phraseology and form worked out by Aristotle, so far as such retention is consistent with the changes incident to the advances of time. (4) Formal fallacies occur because of careless and improper use of words as arbitrary signs. Formal fallacies are definite and easy of comprehension. The material fallacies are due to certain inconsistencies in thought and to imperfect ways of interpreting language. They are more subtle and thus more difficult of comprehension than the formal fallacies. There are material fallacies in thought and material fallacies in language; the former are due to _looseness in thinking_ and the latter to _lack of precision in expression_. (5) Fallacies of opposition result most frequently from deriving universals from their corresponding particulars, and from assuming to contradict affirmative universals by negative universals and affirmative particulars by negative particulars.