- – – that “Reasoning’ has two rational branches 1. Fromal-Argumentation; and 2. Moral-Reasoning ;
- of which formal-argumentation has as one of its defining foundations
the Syllogism form of reasoning and of construcxtive-argumentation
within approaching and using which
is the need for the standard three terms to be named and functioned – - thus in the three-part syllogism
Premise 1 (the Major premise) “All men are mortal
[Premise 2 the Minor premise] “May is mortal”
[Conclusion ] “Therefore May is a man” – – – - is an instance of a three-part syllogism of the “categorical” kind
(i.e. is ‘valid’ in form and ‘certain-in-all-cases’ in Truth]
and is not an instance of the “Inductiove” kind syllogism where the argumentation is limited to “Some”
[‘some’- has the factual-sense of ‘just 1%’ – or any number up to and including 99%) “strongly-true” and not 100% valid and true.for “All” in all-cases] – – – - BUT HOLD-YOUR-HORSES TOO
for there is a further factor within that argument that could disqualify nit, - namely the ambiguous term “May” ..together with its sub-sequent differently ambiguous “- is a man“..