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.

Wherein differeth this kinde of Argument from the rest?

This kinde of Argument differeth in forme from all the rest before taught, for a Syllogisme proceedeth from the generall kinde to the speciall kinde, or otherwise. An Enthimeme imi∣tating a Syllogisme, reciteth in his Antecedent the cause of the Conclusion. Againe, an Induction out of many particularities gathereth an vniuersalitie, none of which things is to be found in an Example, proceeding onely from one particular to ano∣ther like particular. Notwithstanding Aristotle saith, that it may be reduced partly to an Induction, and partly to a Syllo∣gisme: for in taking the first particular, you may by an vnper∣fect Induction imply an vniuersall Proposition. And so from that vniuersall Proposition to proceed by order of Syllogisme vnto the other particular implyed in the conclusion of the Ex∣ample, as in this Example: Iuaas died euill: Ergo, Pilate also died euill: it may be first reduced into an vnperfect Induction thus: Iudas dyed euill, because hee was the author of Christs death, and did not repent: Ergo, Euery man that was author of Christs death, and did not repent, died euill. Into a Syllo∣gisme thus: Euery man that was author of Christs death, and did not repent, died euil; but Pilat was author of Christs death, and did not repent: Ergo, Pilate died euill.