XXIV.: On Example - Aristotle, Posterior Analytics 
Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, trans. E.S. Bouchier, B.A. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1901).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
- Introductory Note.
- Book I.
- Chap. I.: Whether a Demonstrative Science Exists
- Chap. II.: What Knowing Is, What Demonstration Is, and of What It Consists
- Chap. III.: A Refutation of the Error Into Which Some Have Fallen Concerning Science and Demonstration
- Chap. IV.: The Meaning of ‘distributive,’ ‘essential,’ ‘universal’
- Chap. V.: From What Causes Mistakes Arise With Regard to the Discovery of the Universal. How They May Be Avoided
- Chap. VI.: Demonstration Is Founded On Necessary and Essential Principles
- Chap. VII.: The Premises and the Conclusion of a Demonstration Must Belong to the Same Genus
- Chap. VIII.: Demonstration Is Concerned Only With What Is Eternal
- Chap. IX.: Demonstration Is Founded Not On General, But On Special and Indemonstrable Principles; Nor Is It Easy to Know Whether One Really Possesses Knowledge Drawn From These Principles
- Chap. X.: The Definition and Division of Principles
- Chap. XI.: On Certain Principles Which Are Common to All Sciences
- Chap. XII.: On Questions, And, In Passing, On the Way In Which Sciences Are Extended
- Chap. XIII.: The Difference Between the Demonstration and Science of a Thing’s Nature and Those of Its Cause
- Chap. XIV.: The Figure Proper to Demonstrate Syllogism
- Chap. XV.: On Immediate Negative Propositions
- Chap. XVI.: On Ignorance Resulting From a Defective Arrangement of Terms In Mediate Propositions
- Chap. XVII.: On Ignorance Resulting From a Defective Arrangement of Terms In Immediate Propositions
- Chap. XVIII.: On Ignorance As Resulting From Defective Sense Perception
- Chap. XIX.: Whether the Principles of Demonstration Are Finite Or Infinite
- Chap. XX.: Middle Terms Are Not Infinite
- Chap. XXI.: In Negations Some Final and Ultimate Point Is Reached Where the Series Must Cease
- Chap. XXII.: In Affirmations Some Final and Ultimate Point Is Reached Where the Series Must Cease
- Chap. XXIII.: Certain Corollaries
- Chap. XXIV.: Whether Universal Or Particular Demonstration Is Superior
- Chap. XXV.: That Affirmative Is Superior to Negative Demonstration
- Chap. XXVI.: Direct Demonstration Is Superior to Reduction Per Impossible
- Chap. XXVII.: What Science Is More Certain and Prior, and What Less Certain and Inferior
- Chap. XXVIII.: What Constitutes One Or Many Sciences
- Chap. XXIX.: Concerning Many Demonstrations of the Same Thing
- Chap. XXX.: On Fortuitous Occurrences
- Chap. XXXI.: Sense Perception Cannot Give Demonstrative Science
- Chap. XXXII.: On the Difference of Principles Corresponding to the Difference of Syllogisms
- Chap. XXXIII.: The Distinction Between Science and Opinion
- Chap. XXXIV.: On Sagacity
- Book II.
- Chap. I.: On the Number and Arrangements of Questions
- Chap. II.: Every Question Is Concerned With the Discovery of a Middle Term
- Chap. III.: The Distinction Between Definition and Demonstration
- Chap. IV.: The Essence of a Thing Cannot Be Attained By Syllogism
- Chap. V.: Knowledge of the Essence Cannot Be Attained By Division
- Chap. VI.: The Essence Cannot Be Proved By the Definition of the Thing Itself Or By That of Its Opposite
- Chap. VII.: Whether the Essence Can In Any Way Be Proved
- Chap. VIII.: How the Essence Can Be Proved
- Chap. IX.: What Essences Can and What Cannot Be Proved
- Chap. X.: The Nature and Forms of Definition
- Chap. XI.: The Kinds of Causes Used In Demonstration
- Chap. XII.: On the Causes of Events Which Exist, Are In Process, Have Happened, Or Will Happen
- Chap. XIII.: On the Search For a Definition
- Chap. XIV.: On the Discovery of Questions For Demonstration
- Chap. XV.: How Far the Same Middle Term Is Employed For Demonstrating Different Questions
- Chap. XVI.: On Inferring the Cause From the Effect
- Chap. XVII.: Whether There Can Be Several Causes of the Same Thing
- Chap. XVIII.: Which Is the Prior Cause, That Which Is Nearer the Particular, Or the More Universal?
- Chap. XIX.: On the Attainment of Primary Principles
- Appendix. Prior Analytics. Book II.
- Chap. XXIII.: On Induction
- XXIV.: On Example
Example consists in the demonstration that the major is true of the middle term by the help of a fourth term or number of terms resembling the minor. Example bears the relation of part to part, thus differing from syllogism, while it differs from induction in using only a few instances or even one, instead of the entire number of individuals included under the common designation or term.
Example is the method used when the major term is proved true of the middle by a means of a term resembling the minor. It must already be known that the middle is true of the minor and the major of the term resembling the minor. For instance, let A be ‘a bad thing’; B ‘to make war on neighbours’; C ‘War of Athenians against Thebans’; D ‘War of Thebans against Phocians.’ If then we wish to prove that it is a bad thing [for the Athenians] to enter on war with the Thebans, we must make use of the proposition ‘It is a bad thing to make war on neighbours.’ This is supported by similar instances; e.g. by the war of the Thebans against the Phocians. Since then fighting against one’s neighbours is a bad thing, and fighting against the Thebans is fighting against neighbours, it is clearly a bad thing to fight against the Thebans.
It is plain that B is true both of C and D, for both are cases of making war on neighbours, and it is likewise clear that A is true of D, for the war against the Phocians was not favourable to the Thebans. That A is true of B will be proved by means of the term D.
The same method is applicable if several similar examples be employed to prove the major term of the middle.
It is clear then that the Example has neither the relation of part to whole nor of whole to part, but of part to part; that is to say both terms are included under the same common term, but only one of them is already known. It differs from induction, in that induction proves, by a survey of all the individual instances, that the major is true of the middle, not that it is true of the minor, while example does prove the major true of the minor, and does not make use of all the individual instances, but only of some or one.