of the propositions they have specified.

We have explained elsewhere that analogical reasoning and syllogistic reasoning necessarily entail one another: whatever either yields, whether knowledge or probable judgment, the other yields likewise, provided the content is the same. What matters is the content of the knowledge, not the form of the proposition. Indeed, when the content is certain, it remains the same whether expressed through analogy or through syllogism, and whether the syllogism is conjunctive or exceptive—in their terminology or in whatever wording you choose, especially wording that is better than theirs, clearer to the mind, and more concise. The meaning remains the same.

This can be seen in the most obvious examples. You may say: “This is a human being, and every human being is a created being, or an animal, or sentient, or capable of voluntary motion, or rational,” or mention whatever other necessary attribute of a human being you choose. You may formulate the argument in this way, or you may say: “He is a human being; therefore, he is a created being, or sentient, or an animal, or capable of motion, like other human beings, since they share the human nature that entails these attributes.” Alternatively, you may say: “This is a human being, and human nature entails these properties; therefore, they necessarily belong to him.” Or you may say: “If he is a human being, then he possesses these attributes that necessarily belong to human beings.”

You may also say: “Either he possesses these attributes or he does not. The second alternative is false, so the first must hold, because these attributes necessarily belong to a human being, whose existence without them is inconceivable.”

As for induction, it yields certainty only when it is complete. In that case, you have attributed to the common element what you have found in every individual, and this