104.  Examine how far conceptions of Persistence and of Invariable Concomitance of Properties are involved in the methodological application of the conception of Cause.

104A.  Inquire whether the two following propositions can be reconciled with one another:  (a) The same conjunction of antecedents is invariably followed by the same consequent; (b) We never find the same concurrence of phenomena a second time. [C]

105.  Using the term Logic in a wide sense, so as to include Methodology, inquire how far a Logic of Observation is possible, and show in what it will consist. [C]

106.  What is Proof?

Explain and discuss the following dicta:—­(a) Qui nimium probat, nihil probat:  (b) A bad proof is worse than no proof; (c) The exception proves the rule; (d) Negatives cannot be proved. [C]

107.  Examine how far the rules of immediate and syllogistic inference are modified by differences of interpretation of the categorical proposition in respect of the existence of the subject. [S]

108.  “An effect is but the sum of all the partial causes, the concurrence of which constitutes its existence.”  “The cause of an event is its invariable and unconditional antecedent.”  Explain and compare these two theories of causation.  Does either alone exhaust the scientific conception of cause? [S]

109.  Under what logical conditions are statistical inferences authorised, and what is the nature of their conclusions? [S]

110.  Distinguish between Psychology, Metaphysics, and Logic; and discuss briefly their mutual relations. [S]

111.  All processes of inference in which the ultimate premises are particular cases are equally induction.

Induction is an inverse deduction.

Explain and contrast these two theories of the relation of induction to deduction. [S]

112.  What are the Fallacies specially incident to Induction?—­or to the application of the theory of Probabilities? [S]

113.  What is meant by the personal error (or personal equation) in observation?  Discuss its importance in different branches of knowledge. [S]

114.  Define and illustrate:—­Paralogism, ignoratio elenchi, fallacia accidentis, argumentum ad verecundiam, illicit process, undistributed middle, etc.

115.  State the three fundamental laws of thought, explain their meaning, and consider how far they are independent of each other? [L]

116.  Enumerate the “Heads of Predicables” and define their meaning.  Discuss their logical importance. [L]

117.  Upon what grounds has it been asserted that the conclusion of a syllogism is drawn, not from, but according to, the major premise?  Are they valid? [L]

118.  “Experiment is always preferable to observation.”  Why is this?  Explain from the example of any science how observation and experiment supplement each other. [L]