The arte of logick Plainely taught in the English tongue, according to the best approued authors. Very necessary for all students in any profession, how to defend any argument against all subtill sophisters, and cauelling schismatikes, and how to confute their false syllogismes, and captious arguments. By M. Blundevile.

How may we reason from diuision?

Two manner of wayes: first, from the denying of one part or more of the diuision, to affirme another part therof, as thus: Euery sensible body is whole or sicke, but Peter is a sensible body and not sicke: Ergo, hee is whole: or thus. Of sensible bodies there be some whole, some sicke. Peter is a sensible bo∣die and not sicke: Ergo, he is whole. In these two kindes of examples the diuision consisteth onely of two parts, wherein it sufficeth to denie the one for affirming the other. But if the di∣uision consist of many parts, then you must denie all the parts sauing that which you would affirme, as in this example fol∣lowing:

Plato disputeth, is a proposition, but it is neither vni∣uersall, particular, nor indefinite: Ergo, it is a singular proposi∣tion: in which kind of reasoning if you leaue out or omit any part that is to be denied, then the conclusion is naught, for it is no good consequent to say thus: this proposition Plato dis∣puteth, is neither vniuersal nor particular: Ergo, it is indefinite. Notwithstanding, if you ioyne the part omitted in your Ante∣cedent with a coniunction disiunctiue, the argument may be made good; as to say thus: this proposition Plato disputeth, is neither vniuersall nor particular: Ergo, it is either indefinite or singular.