ing; as in adopting premises on
insufficient authority, or without examining the facts; or in mistaking
the point to be proved.

Sec. 2. Formal Fallacies of Deduction and Induction are, all of them,
breaches of the rule 'not to go beyond the evidence.' As a detailed
account of them would be little else than a repetition of the foregoing
chapters, it may suffice to recall some of the places at which it is
easiest to go astray.

(1) It is not uncommon to mistake the Contrary for the Contradictory,
as--A is not taller than B, .'. he is shorter.

(2) To convert _A._ or _O._ simply, as--

All Money is Wealth .'. All Wealth is Money;

or--Some Wealth is not Money .'. Some Money is not Wealth.

In both these cases, Wealth, though undistributed in the convertend, is
distributed in the converse.

(3) To attempt to syllogise with two premises containing four terms, as

The Papuans are savages;
The Javanese are neighbours of the Papuans:
.'. The Javanese are savages.

Such an argument is excluded by the definition of a Syllogism, and
presents no formal evidence whatever. We should naturally assume that
any man who advanced it merely meant to raise some probability that
'neighbourhood is a sign of community of ideas and customs.' But, if so,
he should have been more explicit. There would, of course, be the same
failure of connection, if a fourth term were introduced into the
conclusion, instead of into the premises.

(4) To distribute in the conclusion a term that was undistributed in the
premises (an error essentially the same as (2) above), i.e., Illicit
process of the major or minor term, as--

Every rational agent is accountable;
Brutes are not rational agents:
.'. Brutes are not accountable.

In this example (from Whately), an illegitimate mood of Fig. I., the
major term, 'accountable,' has suffered the illicit process; since, in
the premise, it is predicate of an affirmative proposition and,
therefore, undistributed; but, in the conclusion, it is predicate of a
negative proposition and, therefore, distributed. The fact that nearly
everybody would accept the conclusion as true, might lead one to
overlook the formal inconclusiveness of the proof.

Again,

All men are two-handed;
All two-handed animals are cooking animals:
.'. All cooking animals are men.

Here we have Bramantip concluding in A.; and there is, formally, an
illicit process of the minor; tho