C has the predicate B,

　　A has the predicate C,

　　Therefore, A has the predicate B.

　　In the Second Figure only mixed Ratiocinations are possible.

　　Pattern of Second Figure:

　　Subject...............Predicate

　　Major Term........Middle Term........Major Premise

　　Minor Term.........Middle Term........Minor Premise

　　Minor Term........Major Term...........Conclusion

　　The rule of the second figure is: Whatever is inconsistent with the predicate of a subject is inconsistent with the subject. This is a mixed ratiocination because an unexpressed proposition must be added in thought in order to arrive at the conclusion. If I say,

　　No B is C,

　　A is C,

　　Therefore, A is not B

　　My inference is valid only if I silently interpose the immediate inference No C is B after the first premise. It is merely the negative converse of the first premise. Without it, the ratiocination is invalid.

　　In the Third Figure only mixed Ratiocinations are possible.