cases, the conclusion is more universal than the premisses; but it is because we take in an hypothetical assumption, in addition to the premisses. [Footnote 59: Ibid. I. xxix. p. 45, a. 25-b. 15.] [Footnote 60: Ibid. I. xxix. p. 45, b. 15-20. This paragraph is very obscure. Neither Alexander, nor Waitz, nor St. Hilaire clears it up **completely. See Schol. pp. 178, b., 179, a. Brandis. Aristotle concludes by saying that syllogisms from an hypothesis ought to be reviewed and classified into varieties--[Greek: e)piske/psasthai de\ dei= kai\ dielei=n posachô=s oi( e)x u(pothe/seôs] (b. 20). But it is doubtful whether he himself ever executed this classification. It was done in the Analytica of his successor Theophrastus (Schol. p. 179, a. 6, 24). Compare the note of M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire, p. 140.] [Footnote 61: Analyt. Prior. I. xxix. p. 45, b. 21-30.] Aristotle has now shown a method of procedure common to all investigations and proper for the solution of all problems, wherever soluble. He has shown, first, all the conditions and varieties of probative Syllogism, two premisses and three terms, with the place required for the middle term in each of the three figures; next, the quarter in which we are to look for all the materials necessary or suitable for constructing valid syllogisms. Having the two terms of the thesis given, we must study the predicates and subjects belonging to both, and must provide a large list of them; out of which list we must make selection according to the purpose of the moment. Our selection will be different, according as we wish to prove or to refute, and according as the conclusion that we wish to prove is an universal or a particular. The lesson here given will be most useful in teaching the reasoner to confine his attention to the sort of materials really promising, so that he may avoid wasting his time upon such as are irrelevant.[62] [Footnote 62: Ibid. b. 36-xxx. p. 46, a. 10.]