Having thus shown under what conditions the conclusion can be employed for the demonstration of the premisses, Aristotle proceeds to state by what transformation it can be employed for the refutation of them. This he calls _converting_ the syllogism; a most inconvenient use of the term _convert_ ([Greek: a)ntistre/phein]), since he had already assigned to that same term more than one other meaning, distinct and different, in logical procedure.[10] What it here means is _reversing_ the conclusion, so as to exchange it either for its contrary, or for its contradictory; then employing this reversed proposition as a new premiss, along with one of the previous premisses, so as to disprove the other of the previous premisses--_i.e._ to prove its contrary or contradictory. The result will here be different, according to the manner in which the conclusion is reversed; according as you exchange it for its contrary or its contradictory. Suppose that the syllogism demonstrated is: A belongs to all B, B belongs to all C; _Ergo_, A belongs to all C (_Barbara_). Now, if we reverse this conclusion by taking its _contrary_, A belongs to no C, and if we combine this as a new premiss with the major of the former syllogism, A belongs to all B, we shall obtain as a conclusion B belongs to no C; which is the _contrary_ of the minor, in the form _Camestres_. If, on the other hand, we reverse the conclusion by taking its _contradictory_, A does not belong to all C, and combine this with the same major, we shall have as conclusion, B does not belong to all C; which is the _contradictory_ of the minor, and in the form _Baroco_: though in the one case as in the other the minor is disproved. The major is _contradictorily_ disproved, whether it be the contrary or the contradictory of the conclusion that is taken along with the minor to form the new syllogism; but still the form varies from _Felapton_ to _Bocardo_. Aristotle shows farther how the same process applies to the other modes of the First, and to the modes of the Second and Third figures.[11] The new syllogism, obtained by this process of reversal, is always in a different figure from the syllogism reversed. Thus syllogisms in the First figure are reversed by the Second and Third; those in the second, by the First and Third; those in the Third, by the First and Second.[12] [Footnote 10: Schol. (ad Analyt. Prior. p. 59, b. 1), p. 190, b. 20, Brandis. Compare the notes of M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire, pp. 55, 242.] [Footnote 11: Analyt. Prior. II. viii.-x. p. 59, b. 1-p. 61, a. 4.] [Footnote 12: Ibid. x. p. 61, a. 7-15.]