(_a_) Subsumption is argument by subject and attribute; _i.e._ when we do not know the system so as to construct the detail,--_e.g._ a man’s character,--and can only state _in_ what individual system the details occur. Then we _really want_ the major premise to lay down the properties of the system, and all deduction _can_ therefore be employed with a major premise, _e.g._ a mathematical argument might ultimately take the form, “_space is such that_ two parallels cannot meet.” _Construction_ But (_b_) when the nature of the subject is very obvious, and the combinations in it very definite, then the major premise is superfluous, and adds nothing to the elements of the combination. “A to right of B, B to right of C. ∴ A to right of C.” This is clear, but it is not formal; as a syllogism it has four terms. It is simply a construction in a series of which the nature is obvious. And if you insert a major premise it would be, “What is to the right of anything is to the right {164} of that which the former is to the right of,” and that is simply the nature of the series implied in the inference stated in an abstract form. “Inference is a construction followed by an intuition.” [1] The construction, I think, however, must be a stage of the intuition. I am therefore inclined to suggest that a factor of general insight into principle is neglected in this definition, from which much may undoubtedly be learned. [1] Bradley, _Principles of Logic_, p. 235. _Causation_ 3. I have said very little about causation. The fact is, that in Logic the cause necessarily fades away into the reason, that is, the explanation. If we follow Mill’s account, we see how this takes place. I will put the stages very briefly. _Cause_ (_a_) We start, no doubt, by thinking of a cause as a real event in time, the priority of which is the condition of another event, the effect. Pull the trigger--cause--and the gun goes off--effect. _Complete conditions_ (_b_) The moment we look closer at it, we see that this will not do, and we begin to say with Mill, that the cause is the antecedent which includes _all_ the conditions of the effect. The plurality of alternative causes breaks down, through the conditions defining the effect. Pull the trigger?--yes, but the cartridge must be in its place, the striker must be straight, the cap must be in order, the powder must be dry and chemically fit, and so on, and so on, till it becomes pretty clear that the cause is a system of circumstances which include the effect. _Law_