Thus, if it is said:

“This is equal to that, and things equal to the same thing are equal to one another,”

equality is the middle term. Eliminating any relevant difference is simply an expression of equality.

If it is said:

“There is no difference between the secondary and primary cases except such-and-such, which is impossible,”

this is equivalent to saying: “This is equal to that, and the judgment applying to one of two equals applies to the other.”

As for their statement:

“Everything that indicates that the shared attribute is the cause of the judgment is conjectural,”

we reply:

“We do not concede this. It is a universal claim for which you have supplied no evidence.”

We further say: What establishes that the shared attribute is the cause also establishes the truth of the major premise. Whatever establishes the truth of the major premise in syllogistic reasoning also establishes that the shared attribute is the cause in analogical reasoning, whether that evidence is conclusive or conjectural. For the shared attribute in analogy is the middle term. The judgment’s following necessarily from that attribute is the major term’s following necessarily from the middle term. The middle term’s following necessarily from the minor term is the shared attribute’s following necessarily from the minor term—namely, the presence of the cause in the secondary case.

Thus, if the shared attribute—called the common attribute, the cause, the indication of the cause, the basis of the judgment, or whatever other name it may bear—is present in the secondary case and necessarily belongs to it, this establishes the truth of the minor premise. If the judgment applies to the attribute and follows necessarily from it, this establishes the truth of the major premise. Mentioning the primary case serves to establish