In every act of Judgment there must be at least two concepts to be examined and compared. This comparison must lead to a Judgment regarding their agreement or disagreement. For instance, we have the two concepts, _horse_ and _animal_. We examine and compare the two concepts, and find that there is an agreement between them. We find that the concept _horse_ is included in the higher concept of _animal_ and therefore, we assert that: "_The horse is an animal._" This is a statement of _agreement_ and is, therefore, a _Positive Judgment_. We then compare the concepts _horse_ and _cow_ and find a disagreement between them, which we express in the statement of the Judgment that: "_The horse is not a cow._" This Judgment, stating a disagreement is what is called a _Negative Judgment_. In the above illustration of the comparison between the concepts _horse_ and _animal_ we find that the second concept _animal_ is broader than the first, _horse_, so broad in fact that it includes the latter. The terms are not equal, for we cannot say, in truth, that "an animal is the horse." We may, however, include a _part_ of the broader conception with the narrower and say: "some animals are horses." Sometimes both concepts are of equal rank, as when we state that: "Man is a rational animal." In the process of Judgment there is always the necessity of the choice between the Positive and the Negative. When we compare the concepts _horse_ and _animal_, we must of necessity decide either that the horse _is_ an animal, or else that it is _not_ an animal.