This Rule entirely authorises us to assert (in the sense in which "The Logicians" would use the words) "Some boys in the First Class will receive prizes", for this simply means (according to them) "If there _were_ any boys in the First Class, some of them _would_ receive prizes." Now the Converse of this Proposition is, of course, "Some boys, who will receive prizes, are in the First Class", which means (according to "The Logicians") "If there _were_ any boys about to receive prizes, some of them _would_ be in the First Class" (which Class we know to be _empty_). Of this Pair of Converse Propositions, the first is undoubtedly _true_: the second, _as_ undoubtedly, _false_. It is always sad to see a batsman knock down his own wicket: one pities him, as a man and a brother, but, as a _cricketer_, one can but pronounce him "Out!" We see, then, that, among all the conceivable views we have here considered, there are only _two_ which can _logically_ be held, viz. _I_ and _A_ "assert", but _E_ does not. _E_ and _A_ "assert", but _I_ does not. The _second_ of these I have shown to involve great practical inconvenience. The _first_ is the one adopted in this book. (See p. 19.) Some further remarks on this subject will be found in Note (B), at p. 196. § 3. _The use of "is-not" (or "are-not") as a Copula._ Is it better to say "John _is-not_ in-the-house" or "John _is_ not-in-the-house"? "Some of my acquaintances _are-not_ men-I-should-like-to-be-seen-with" or "Some of my acquaintances _are_ men-I-should-_not_-like-to-be-seen-with"? That is the sort of question we have now to discuss. pg172 This is no question of Logical Right and Wrong: it is merely a matter of _taste_, since the two forms mean exactly the same thing. And here, again, "The Logicians" seem to me to take much too humble a position. When they are putting the final touches to the grouping of their Proposition, just before the curtain goes up, and when the Copula----always a rather fussy 'heavy father', asks them "Am _I_ to have the 'not', or will you tack it on to the Predicate?" they are much too ready to answer, like the subtle cab-driver, "Leave it to _you_, Sir!" The result seems to be, that the grasping Copula constantly gets a "not" that had better have been merged in the Predicate, and that Propositions are differentiated which had better have been recognised as precisely similar. Surely it is simpler to treat "Some men are Jews" and "Some men are Gentiles" as being both of them, _affirmative_ Propositions, instead of translating the latter into "Some men are-not Jews", and regarding it as a _negative_ Propositions?