commits　a　solecism；　though　he　does　not　seem　to　do　so　to　other
  people；　where　he　who　calls　it　a　'destructor'　（oulomenon）　commits　no
  solecism　though　he　seems　to　do　so。　It　is　clear；　then；　that　any　one
  could　produce　this　effect　by　art　as　well：　and　for　this　reason　many
  arguments　seem　to　lead　to　solecism　which　do　not　really　do　so；　as
  happens　in　the　case　of　refutations。
  Almost　all　apparent　solecisms　depend　upon　the　word　'this'　（tode）；
  and　upon　occasions　when　the　inflection　denotes　neither　a　masculine　nor
  a　feminine　object　but　a　neuter。　For　'he'　（outos）　signifies　a
  masculine；　and　'she'　（aute）　feminine；　but　'this'　（touto）；　though
  meant　to　signify　a　neuter；　often　also　signifies　one　or　other　of　the
  former：　e。g。　'What　is　this？'　'It　is　Calliope'；　'it　is　a　log'；　'it　is
  Coriscus'。　Now　in　the　masculine　and　feminine　the　inflections　are　all
  different；　whereas　in　the　neuter　some　are　and　some　are　not。　Often；
  then；　when　'this'　（touto）　has　been　granted；　people　reason　as　if　'him'
  （touton）　had　been　said：　and　likewise　also　they　substitute　one
  inflection　for　another。　The　fallacy　comes　about　because　'this'
  （touto）　is　a　common　form　of　several　inflections：　for　'this'　signifies
  sometimes　'he'　（outos）　and　sometimes　'him'　（touton）。　It　should
  signify　them　alternately；　when　combined　with　'is'　（esti）　it　should　be
  'he'；　while　with　'being'　it　should　be　'him'：　e。g。　'Coriscus
  （Kopiskos）　is'；　but　'being　Coriscus'　（Kopiskon）。　It　happens　in　the
  same　way　in　the　case　of　feminine　nouns　as　well；　and　in　the　case　of　the
  so…called　'chattels'　that　have　feminine　or　masculine　designations。　For
  only　those　names　which　end　in　o　and　n；　have　the　designation　proper
  to　a　chattel；　e。g。　xulon　（'log'）；　schoinion　（'rope'）；　those　which　do
  not　end　so　have　that　of　a　masculine　or　feminine　object；　though　some　of
  them　we　apply　to　chattels：　e。g。　askos　（'wineskin'）　is　a　masculine
  noun；　and　kline　（'bed'）　a　feminine。　For　this　reason　in　cases　of　this
  kind　as　well　there　will　be　a　difference　of　the　same　sort　between　a
  construction　with　'is'　（esti）　or　with　'being'　（to　einai）。　Also；
  Solecism　resembles　in　a　certain　way　those　refutations　which　are　said
  to　depend　on　the　like　expression　of　unlike　things。　For；　just　as
  there　we　come　upon　a　material　solecism；　so　here　we　come　upon　a　verbal：
  for　'man'　is　both　a　'matter'　for　expression　and　also　a　'word'：　and
  so　is　white'。
  It　is　clear；　then；　that　for　solecisms　we　must　try　to　construct　our
  argument　out　of　the　aforesaid　inflections。
  These；　then；　are　the　types　of　contentious　arguments；　and　the
  subdivisions　of　those　types；　and　the　methods　for　conducting　them
  aforesaid。　But　it　makes　no　little　difference　if　the　materials　for
  putting　the　question　be　arranged　in　a　certain　manner　with　a　view　to
  concealment；　as　in　the　case　of　dialectics。　Following　then　upon　what　we
  have　said；　this　must　be　discussed　first。
  15
  With　a　view　then　to　refutation；　one　resource　is　length…for　it　is
  difficult　to　keep　several　things　in　view　at　once；　and　to　secure　length
  the　elementary　rules　that　have　been　stated　before'　should　be　employed。
  One　resource；　on　the　other　hand；　is　speed；　for　when　people　are　left
  behind　they　look　ahead　less。　Moreover；　there　is　anger　and
  contentiousness；　for　when　agitated　everybody　is　less　able　to　take　care
  of　himself。　Elementary　rules　for　producing　anger　are　to　make　a　show　of
  the　wish　to　play　foul；　and　to　be　altogether　shameless。　Moreover；　there
  is　the　putting　of　one's　questions　alternately；　whether　one　has　more
  than　one　argument　leading　to　the　same　conclusion；　or　whether　one　has
  arguments　to　show　both　that　something　is　so；　and　that　it　is　not　so：
  for　the　result　is　that　he　has　to　be　on　his　guard　at　the　same　time
  either　against　more　than　one　line；　or　against　contrary　lines；　of
  argument。　In　general；　all　the　methods　described　before　of　producing
  concealment　are　useful　also　for　purposes　of　contentious　argument：
  for　the　object　of　concealment　is　to　avoid　detection；　and　the　object　of
  this　is　to　deceive。
  To　counter　those　who　refuse　to　grant　whatever　they　suppose　to　help
  one's　argument；　one　should　put　the　question　negatively；　as　though
  desirous　of　the　opposite　answer；　or　at　any　rate　as　though　one　put
  the　question　without　prejudice；　for　when　it　is　obscure　what　answer　one
  wants　to　secure；　people　are　less　refractory。　Also　when；　in　dealing
  with　particulars；　a　man　grants　the　individual　case；　when　the　induction
  is　done　you　should　often　not　put　the　universal　as　a　question；　but　take
  it　for　granted　and　use　it：　for　sometimes　people　themselves　suppose
  that　they　have　granted　it；　and　also　appear　to　the　audience　to　have
  done　so；　for　they　remember　the　induction　and　assume　that　the　questions
  could　not　have　been　put　for　nothing。　In　cases　where　there　is　no　term
  to　indicate　the　universal；　still　you　should　avail　yourself　of　the
  resemblance　of　the　particulars　to　suit　your　purpose；　for　resemblance
  often　escapes　detection。　Also；　with　a　view　to　obtaining　your
  premiss；　you　ought　to　put　it　in　your　question　side　by　side　with　its
  contrary。　E。g。　if　it　were　necessary　to　secure　the　admission　that　'A
  man　should　obey　his　father　in　everything'；　ask　'Should　a　man　obey
  his　parents　in　everything；　or　disobey　them　in　everything？'；　and　to
  secure　that　'A　number　multiplied　by　a　large　number　is　a　large　number'；
  ask　'Should　one　agree　that　it　is　a　large　number　or　a　small　one？'　For
  then；　if　compelled　to　choose；　one　will　be　more　inclined　to　think　it
  a　large　one：　for　the　placing　of　their　contraries　close　beside　them
  makes　things　look　big　to　men；　both　relatively　and　absolutely；　and
  worse　and　better。
  A　strong　appearance　of　having　been　refuted　is　often　produced　by
  the　most　highly　sophistical　of　all　the　unfair　tricks　of　questioners；
  when　without　proving　anything；　instead　of　putting　their　final
  proposition　as　a　question；　they　state　it　as　a　conclusion；　as　though
  they　had　proved　that　'Therefore　so…and…so　is　not　true'
  It　is　also　a　sophistical　trick；　when　a　paradox　has　been　laid　down；
  first　to　propose　at　the　start　some　view　that　is　generally　accepted；
  and　then　claim　that　the　answerer　shall　answer　what　he　thinks　about　it；
  and　to　put　one's　question　on　matters　of　that　kind　in　the　form　'Do
  you　think　that。。。？'　For　then；　if　the　question　be　taken　as　one　of　the
  premisses　of　one's　argument；　either　a　refutation　or　a　paradox　is　bound
  to　result；　if　he　grants　the　view；　a　refutation；　if　he　refuses　to　grant
  it　or　even　to　admit　it　as　the　received　opinion；　a　paradox；　if　he
  refuses　to　grant　it；　but　admits　that　it　is　the　received　opinion；
  something　very　like　a　refutation；　results。
  Moreover；　just　as　in　rhetorical　discourses；　so　also　in　those　aimed
  at　refutation；　you　should　examine　the　discrepancies　of　the
  answerer's　position　either　with　his　own　statements；　or　with　those　of
  persons　whom　he　admits　to　say　and　do　aright；　moreover　with　those　of
  people　who　are　generally　supposed　to　bear　that　kind　of　character；　or
  who　are　like　them；　or　with　those　of　the　majority　or　of　all　men。　Also
  just　as　answerers；　too；　often；　when　they　are　in　process　of　being
  confuted；　draw　a　distinction；　if　their　confutation　is　just　about　to
  take　place；　so　questioners　also　should　resort　to　this　from　time　to
  time　to　counter　objectors；　pointing　out；　supposing　that　against　one
  sense　of　the　words　the　objection　holds；　but　not　against　the　other；
  that　they　have　taken　it　in　the　latter　sense；　as　e。g。　Cleophon　does
  in　the　Mandrobulus。　They　should　also　break　off　their　argument　and
  cut　down　their　other　lines　of　attack；　while　in　answering；　if　a　man
  perceives　this　being　done　beforehand；　he　should　put　in　his　objection
  and　have　his　say　first。　One　should　also　lead　attacks　sometimes　against
  positions　other　than　the　one　stated；　on　the　understood　condition
  that　one　cannot　find　lines　of　attack　against　the　view　laid　down；　as
  Lycophron　did　when　ordered　to　deliver　a　eulogy　upon　the　lyre。　To
  counter　those　who　demand　'Against　what　are　you　directing　your
  effort？'；　since　one　is　generally　thought　bound　to　state　the　charge
  made；　while；　on　the　other　hand；　some　ways　of　stating　it　make　the
  defence　too　easy；　you　should　state　as　your　aim　only　the　general　result
  that　always　happens　in　refutations；　namely　the　contradiction　of　his
  thesis　…viz。　that　your　effort　is　to　deny　what　he　has　affirmed；　or　to
  affirm　what　he　denied：　don't　say　that　you　are　trying　to　show　that
  the　knowledge　of　contraries　is；　or　is　not；　the　same。　One　must　not
  ask　one's　conclusion　in　the　form　of　a　premiss；　while　some
  conclusions　should　not　even　be　put　as　questions　at　all；　one　should
  take　and　use　it　as　granted。
  16
  We　have　now　therefore　dealt　with　the　sources　of　questions；　and　the
  methods　of　questioning　in　contentious　disp