LOGIC 



301 



Thus, if in the above syllogism the major premiss 

 were " some M is A " the middle term would not be 

 distributed in either premiss, since in the minor, M is 

 only affirmed of some B and the totality of M is not 

 regarded ; therefore the third rule (p. 296) is violated. 



Again, if the minor was negative the reasoning, 



No M is A 



(fish) (feathered) 



Some B is not M 



(animal) (fish) 



Therefore some B is not A 



(animal) (feathered) 



FIG. 61. 



would be invalid, because A is distributed in the con- 

 clusion but not in the mcyor premiss a condition techni- 

 cally called "an illicit process of the major." It is 

 evident that when we say "No M is A" we have not, 

 and need not have, in view an extension of the whole 

 periphery of A. What we say is that the whole of M 

 has been surveyed and that none of it is A. But when 



