bun, which the little boy had paid for and left behind him: and
perhaps SHE would reply "Sha'n't!"

But if, in the above example, the writer had drawn the Conclusion
"All misers are selfish" (that is, "All y are x"), this would
be going BEYOND his legitimate rights (since it would assert the
EXISTENCE of y, which is not contained in the Premisses), and you
would very properly say "Fallacious Conclusion!"

Now, when you read other treatises on Logic, you will meet with
various kinds of (so-called) 'Fallacies' which are by no means
ALWAYS so. For example, if you were to put before one of these
Logicians the Pair of Premisses


"No honest men cheat;
No dishonest men are trustworthy."


and were to ask him what Conclusion followed, he would probably say
"None at all! Your Premisses offend against TWO distinct Rules, and
are as fallacious as they can well be!" Then suppose you were bold
enough to say "The Conclusion is 'No men who cheat are trustworthy',"
I fear your Logical friend would turn away hastily--perhaps angry,
perhaps only scornful: in any case, the result would be unpleasant.
I ADVISE YOU NOT TO TRY THE EXPERIMENT!

"But why is this?" you will say. "Do you mean to tell us that all
these Logicians are wrong?" Far from it, dear Reader! From THEIR
point of view, they are perfectly right. But they do not include,