and others held that the term “inferential reasoning” applies in its literal sense to both kinds. This view is more accurate. For anyone who reasons by analogy from the observed to the unobserved must bring both under a universal concept, as in all other forms of analogical reasoning. Likewise, anyone who brings the unobserved and the observed under a universal proposition in syllogistic reasoning must regard them as sharing something and resembling one another in that respect.

Thus, someone’s statement, “If it were something great in magnitude that could be pointed to, it would be divisible, because we know of nothing great in magnitude that can be pointed to except as such,” or, “We cannot conceive of anything great in magnitude that can be pointed to except as such,” is equivalent to his saying, “Because, in anything great in magnitude, if we indicate a point within it, that point is either identical with what is above and below it, or it is not.” For he