SOME LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES 217 



however, arguments in which it is very useful to get the middle 

 term into the conclusion. Here is one : 



X. If Cherries will grow on calcareous soil, 



and Rhododendrons will not grow on calcareous soil ; 

 then Calcareous soil is not equally suitable for all plants. 



And here is another : 



XI. If Logicians may not argue about Many, 

 and Logicians may not argue about Few ; 



then There are two useful quantities forbidden to logicians. 



So much for the third rule of the syllogism. The fourth rule 

 declares that it is impossible for a term to be " distributed " in 

 the conclusion unless that term is " distributed " in a premiss. 

 Unless, therefore, the term in the premiss refers to or includes 

 the whole of the class, that term must not include or refer to the 

 whole class in the conclusion. I say that 



XII. If Some of the crew manned the jolly boat, 

 and Others of the crew manned the long boat : 



then The whole of the crew were enough to man both these boats. 



And I say that I have got the whole class of the crew in the 

 conclusion although part only of this class was in any premiss ; 

 but here again I run up against such a multitude of logical 

 impossibilities that I am fairly ashamed of myself. For reasons 

 already given, the propositions are none of them " logical." In 

 Logic they are impossible. It is as impossible in Logic to 

 reason about " Others " as about " Many " and " Few." " The 

 whole of the crew " is not a " logical " term, and cannot enter 

 into a " logical" argument. You may argue, indeed, about " All 

 the crew," but only if you mean by all the crew every one of the 

 crew taken separately. All the crew may mean every one of the 

 crew, or it may mean the whole of the crew taken together. It 

 is one of those nice, ambiguous, confusing terms that reflect so 

 faithfully the confusion of " logical " doctrine, and therefore it is 

 always used by logicians, although there are precise unambiguous 

 terms ready to hand and begging to be used. Now, in this 

 argument the term in the conclusion means the whole of the 

 crew taken together, and as the term is not a " logical " term, 

 the proposition is not a " logical " proposition, and the argument 

 is not a " logical " argument. Why this should be so, Logic does 

 not explain. If it were obliged to explain, I suppose it would 



