in the other case. For if we say:

“The whole is greater than the part,”

our knowledge that this whole is greater than this part is like our knowledge of the same relation in another whole. Thus any knowledge of a particular that we gain through a universal proposition does not require that proposition in the first place. This merely lengthens the argument to no purpose.

Advocates of syllogistic reasoning say:

On the contrary, analogical reasoning yields knowledge only by making the judgment depend on the shared attribute, which is the middle term. It too must therefore contain a universal proposition. Yet someone reasoning by analogy may claim, merely on the strength of the analogy, that the judgment depends on the shared attribute, without providing evidence that the common attribute uniting the original case and the new case is the ground of the judgment—the middle term. He may sometimes establish this through methods that do not yield knowledge, such as incomplete induction, which is a form of enumeration and elimination, and similar methods. Both kinds of reasoning therefore contain a universal proposition, but the practitioner of syllogistic reasoning establishes it, whereas the practitioner of analogical reasoning does not.

Advocates of analogical reasoning reply:

On the contrary, the practitioner of syllogistic reasoning can establish it only through analogy. Otherwise, if an opponent challenges its universal scope, he has no recourse but to cite particular instances, saying:

“This whole is greater than this