important process of investigation, by which a fact is ascertained to be general in regard to all the individuals of a class,--and likewise, that certain individuals specified in the argument belong to this class. Thus, the syllogism was nothing more than that process of mind which we exercise every time when we examine the validity of an argument, though we may not always put it into this systematic form. And yet there may often be advantage in doing so, as it enables us to examine the elements of the arguments more distinctly apart. It is related of an eminent English barrister, afterward a distinguished judge, that, on one occasion, he was completely puzzled by an argument adduced by his opponent in an important case, and that he did not detect the fallacy, till he went home and put it into the form of a syllogism. Though a syllogism, therefore, may not lead to any discovery of truth, it may be an important instrument in the detection of sophistry, by directing the attention distinctly and separately, to the various elements which compose a statement or an argument, and enabling us to detect the part in which the sophistry is involved.

In every process of reasoning there are two distinct objects of attention, or circumstances to be examined, before we admit the validity of the argument. These are, the premises or data which the reasoner assumes, and which he expects us to admit as true; -and the conclusions which he proposes to found upon these premises. The premises again consist of three parts, which we require to examine separately and rigidly. These are,

1. Certain statements which he brings forward as facts, and which he expects to be admitted as such. 2. Certain principles or propositions which he assumes as first truths, or articles of belief universally admitted.

3. Certain other propositions which he refers to,

as deductions from former processes of investigation, or processes of reasoning.

If the statements referable to these three heads are admitted as true, the argument proceeds, and we have only to judge of validity or correctness of his farther deductions. If they are not at once admitted, the argument cannot proceed till we are satisfied on these preliminary points. If we do not admit his facts, we require him to go back to the evidence on which they rest. If we do not admit the general propositions which he assumes, we require the processes of reasoning or investigation on which these are founded. When we are at last agreed upon these premises, we proceed to judge of the conclusions which he proposes to deduce from them.

The circumstances now referred to may be considered as the essential parts of a process of reasoning, in a logical view; but there is another point which we require to keep carefully in mind in examining such a process, and that is, the use of terms. Much of the confusion and perplexity in reasoning consists in the ambiguity of the terms; this is referable to three heads, namely: 1. Terms of a vague and indefinite character, the precise import of which has not been defined. 2. Terms employed in a sense in some respect different from their common and recognised acceptation. 3. Varying the import of a term, so as to use it in different meanings in different parts of the same argument; or employing it at different times in different degrees of comprehension and extension.

In examining the validity of a process of reasoning, then, the mental operation which we ought to perform may be guided by the following considera. tions:

1. What statements does the author propose as matters of fact;-are these authentic; are they all

really bearing upon, or connected with, the subject do they comprise a full and fair view of all the facts which ought to be brought forward in reference to the inquiry; or have we reason to suspect that any of them have been disguised or modified,-that important facts have been omitted or kept out of view, -that the author has not had sufficient opportunities of acquiring the facts which he ought to have been possessed of, or that he has been collecting facts on one side of a question, or in support of a particular opinion?

2. What propositions are assumed, either as first or intuitive truths, or as deductions arising out of former processes of investigation; and are we satisfied that these are all legitimate and correct? In particular, does he make any statement in regard to two or more events being connected as cause and effect; and is this connexion assumed on sufficient grounds: -does he assume any general principle as applicable to a certain class of facts; is this principle in itself a fact, and does it really apply to all the cases which he means to include under it; have we any reason to believe that it has been deduced from an insufficient number of facts, or is it a mere fictitious hypothesis, founded upon a principle which cannot be proved to have a real existence?

3. Do these assumed principles and facts really belong to the same subject,-or, in other words, do the facts belong to that class to which the principles apply?

4. Are the leading terms which he employs fully and distinctly defined as to their meaning; does he employ them in their common and recognised acceptation; and does he uniformly use them in the same sense; or does he seem to attach different meanings to the same term in different parts of his argument?

5. What are the new conclusions which he deduces from the whole view of the subject; are these cor

rect and valid; and do they'really follow from the premises laid down in the previous parts of his argument? For on this head it is always to be kept in mind that a conclusion may be true, while it does not follow from the argument which has been brought to prove it in such a case the argument is false.

Much of the confusion, fallacy, and sophistry of reasoning arises from these points not being sufficiently attended to, and distinctly and rigidly investigated. An argument may appear fair and consecutive, but when we rigidly examine it we may find that the reasoner has, in his premises, contrived to introduce some statement which is not true in point of fact, or some bold general position which is not correct, or not proved; or that he has left out some fact, or some principle, which ought to have been brought forward in a prominent manner, as closely connected with the inquiry. Hence the necessity for keeping constantly in view the various sources of fallacy to which every process of reasoning is liable, and, for examining the elements rigidly and separately before we admit the conclusion.

A process of reasoning is to be distinguished from a process of investigation; and both may be illustrated in the following manner :-All reasoning must be founded upon facts, and the ascertained relations of these facts to each other. The nature of these relations has already been mentioned, as referable to the various heads of resemblance, cause, effect, &c. The statement of an ascertained relation of two facts to each other is called a proposition, such as,—that A is equal to B; that C has a close resemblance to D; that E is the cause of F, &c. These statements, propositions, or ascertained relations are discovered by processes of investigation. In a process of reasoning, again, we take a certain number of such propositions or ascertained relations, and deduce from them certain other truths or relations, arising

out of the mutual connexion of some of these propositions to each other. Thus, if I state as propositions, ascertained by processes of investigation, that A is equal to B, and that B is equal to C, I immediately decide by a single step of reasoning that A is equal to C, in consequence of the mutual relation which both A and C have to B. Such a process may be rendered more complicated in two ways.

1. By the number of such ascertained relations, which we require to bear in mind and compare with each other before we arrive at the conclusion. Thus the relation that A is equal to E might rest on such a series of relations as the following:-A is equal to B; B is the double of C; C is the half of D; D is equal to E: therefore A is equal to E.

2. By propositions which are the conclusions of one or more steps in a process becoming the premises in a subsequent step. Thus,-I may take as one process A is equal to B, and B is equal to C; therefore A is equal to C;-and, as a distinct process, C is equal to D, and D is equal to E; therefore C is equal to E. The conclusions from these two processes I then take as the premises in a third process -thus: it has been proved that A is equal to C, and that C is equal to E; therefore A is equal to E.

In examining the validity of such processes, there are two circumstances or objects of inquiry which we ought to keep constantly in view. (1.) Have we confidence in the accuracy of the alleged facts, and ascertained relations which form the premises?-Can we rely on the process of investigation by which it is said to have been ascertained that A is equal to B, and that B is equal to C, &c.? (2.) Are the various propositions in the series so related as to bring out a new truth or new relation? For it is to be kept in mind that a series of propositions may all be true, and yet lead to nothing; such propositions, for example, as that A is equal to B, C is equal to D, E is equal to F. There is here no mutual relation, and