ERROR AND FALLACIES 309 



lessness about the proper sequence of words in constructing the 

 sentence. Here are a few instances : &quot; How much are twice 

 four and seven ? &quot; (It may be fifteen, or twenty-two.) &quot; I accom 

 plished my business and returned the day after.&quot; &quot; Lost a valu 

 able umbrella belonging to a gentleman with a curiously carved 

 head.&quot; &quot; Lord Salisbury will reply to Mr. Gladstone s recent 

 speech at the Guildhall.&quot; &quot; Wolsey left at his death many build 

 ings which he had commenced in an unfinished state.&quot; 



(&amp;lt;r) The fallacies A DICTO SECUNDUM QUID AD DICTUM SIM- 

 PLICITER, and A DICTO SIMPLICITER AD DICTUM SECUNDUM QUID, 

 have this in common, that they confound what is true absolutely 

 with what is true only under certain restrictions and limitations. 

 The former consists essentially in arguing from a statement which 

 is true with certain limitations or qualifications, as if it were true 

 absolutely, always, and apart from those qualifications. Aristotle 

 illustrates it by examples which are apparent violations of the 

 principle of contradiction, e.g. &quot; arguing that an object which is 

 partly white and partly black is both white and not white &quot;. This 

 is confounding &quot; white in a certain respect &quot; (secundum quid, irrf) 

 with &quot; white absolutely &quot; (simpliciter, aTrXw?). Similarly, to 

 argue that &quot; we should never give alms, because giving alms to 

 professional tramps promotes idleness,&quot; is to commit this fallacy. 

 So, also, the argument that &quot;because alcoholic drinks are per 

 nicious they should be forbidden,&quot; would be regarded as an in 

 stance of the fallacy by those who hold the alleged premiss to be 

 true only secundum quid, i.e. of immoderate quantities. Some 

 instances of this fallacy might be classified under the head of 

 illicit generalization (275, B, c) : they are attempts to extend a 

 statement beyond the special circumstances in which it is true. 



A similar fallacy is committed by arguing from one special 

 case to another special case, regardless of circumstances which 

 invalidate the inference. It might be described as the fallacy 

 a dicto secundum unum aliquid ad dictum secundum aliquid aliud ; 

 it is really a sort of false analogy (275, B, #). &quot; He who takes life 

 in sport is cruel ; therefore he who eats flesh encourages cruelty.&quot; 

 The story is told in the Decameron of the servant who brought 

 to table a stork minus one of the legs. To his master s inquiry 

 about the other leg he replied that storks have only one leg each. 

 Master and servant settled the dispute by adjourning after dinner 

 to a field where a number of storks were standing each on one 

 leg. When the master shouted they put down each its other leg 



