E.

34. What is a Syllogism? Find, without reference to the mnemonic verses,
in what different ways it is possible to prove syllogistically the
conclusion _No S is P_; and show the equivalence between these different
ways. [S]

35. From what points of view can the syllogism be regarded

(1) as being, (2) as not being, a _petitio principii_? [S]

36. What are the figures of syllogism? For what kind of arguments are
they severally adapted? [S]

37. What is meant by Mood and Figure? How can the validity of a Mood be
tested? Should there be four Figures or three? [S]

38. Construct syllogisms in Camenes, Datisi and Baroco, and reduce them
to the corresponding moods of the first figure.

39. Explain the meaning of "ostensive" and "indirect" Reduction. Show
that any Mood of the second Figure may be reduced in either way.

40. Show that A cannot be proved except in the First Figure. Express the
following reasoning in as many syllogistic figures as you can: Some
theorists cannot be trusted, for they are unwise. [S]

41. Discuss the possibility of reducing the argument _a fortiori_ to the
syllogistic form. [S]

42. Can a false conclusion be reached through true premises, or a true
conclusion through false premises? Give reasons for your answer. [S]

43. Can we under any circumstances infer a relation between X and Z from
the premises--

Some Y's are X's
Some Y's are Z's? [S]

44. Take an apparent syllogism subject to the fallacy of negative
premises, and inquire whether you can correct the reasoning by
converting one or both of the premises into the affirmative form. [S]

45. Enumerate the faults to which a syllogism is liable, giving
instances of each. [S]

46. State any Enthymeme, and expand it into (1) a Syllogism, (2) an
Epicheirema, (3) a Sorites; and give in each case the technical name of
the Mood or Order that results.

47. State any Disjunctive Syllogism, and change it (1) into a
Hypothetical, (2) into a Categorical; and discuss the loss or gain, in
cogency or significance involved in this process.

48. Can the Syllogism be treated as merely a consequence of the "Laws of
Thought"? If not, why not; and what else does it imply?

49. Prove that with three given propositions (of the forms A., E., I.,
O.) it is never possible to construct more than one valid syllogism. [C]

50. Distinguish between a Constructive and a Destructive Hypothetical
Syllogism; and show how one may be reduced t