§ 592. Rule 6 declares that, if one premiss be negative, the conclusion must be negative. Now in compliance with Rule 5, if one premiss be negative, the other must be affirmative. We have therefore the case contemplated in the second axiom, namely, of one term agreeing and the other disagreeing with the same third term; and we know that this can only give ground for a judgement of disagreement between the two terms themselves--in other words, to a negative conclusion. § 593. Rule 7 declares that, if the conclusion be negative, one of the premisses must be negative; but, if the conclusion be affirmative, both premisses must be affirmative. It is plain from the axioms that a judgement of disagreement can only be elicited from a judgement of agreement combined with a judgement of disagreement, and that a judgement of agreement can result only from two prior judgements of agreement. § 594. The seven rules already treated of are evident by their own light, being of the nature of definitions and axioms: but the two remaining rules, which deal with particular premisses, admit of being proved from their predecessors. § 595. Proof of Rule 8.--_That two particular premisses prove nothing_. We know by Rule 5 that both premisses cannot be negative. Hence they must be either both affirmative, II, or one affirmative and one negative, IO or OI. Now II premisses do not distribute any term at all, and therefore the middle term cannot be distributed, which would violate Rule 3. Again in IO or OI premisses there is only one term distributed, namely, the predicate of the O proposition. But Rule 3 requires that this one term should be the middle term. Therefore the major term must be undistributed in the major premiss. But since one of the premisses is negative, the conclusion must be negative, by Rule 6. And every negative proposition distributes its predicate. Therefore the major term must be distributed where it occurs as predicate of the conclusion. But it was not distributed in the major premiss. Therefore in drawing any conclusion we violate Rule 4 by an illicit process of the major term. § 596. Proof of Rule 9.--_That_, _if_ one _premiss be particular_, _the conclusion must be particular_. Two negative premisses being excluded by Rule 5, and two particular by Rule 8, the only pairs of premisses we can have are-- AI, AO, EI. Of course the particular premiss may precede the universal, but the order of the premisses will not affect the reasoning. AI premisses between them distribute one term only. This must be the middle term by Rule 3. Therefore the conclusion must be particular, as its subject cannot be distributed,