(7) [see [p. 69]]
”No one, who means to go by the train and cannot get a conveyance, and has not enough time to walk to the station, can do without running;
This party of tourists mean to go by the train and cannot get a conveyance, but they have plenty of time to walk to the station.
This party of tourists need not run.”
Univ. “persons meaning to go by the train, and unable to get a conveyance”; m = having enough time to walk to the station; x = needing to run; y = these tourists.
m′x′0 † y1m′0 do not come under any of the three Figures. Hence it is necessary to return to the Method of Diagrams, as shown at [p. 69].
Hence there is no Conclusion.
[Work Examples § 4, 12–20 ([p. 100]); § 5, 13–24 ([pp. 101], [102]); § 6, 1–6 ([p. 106]); § 7, 1–3 ([pp. 107], [108]). Also read [Note (A), at p. 164].]
[pg081]§ 3.
Fallacies.
Any argument which deceives us, by seeming to prove what it does not really prove, may be called a ‘Fallacy’ (derived from the Latin verb fallo “I deceive”): but the particular kind, to be now discussed, consists of a Pair of Propositions, which are proposed as the Premisses of a Syllogism, but yield no Conclusion.
When each of the proposed Premisses is a Proposition in I, or E, or A, (the only kinds with which we are now concerned,) the Fallacy may be detected by the ‘Method of Diagrams,’ by simply setting them out on a Triliteral Diagram, and observing that they yield no information which can be transferred to the Biliteral Diagram.