prosyllogismn.

1574 R. MacIlmaine tr. P. de La Ramée Logike ii. viii. 81 If any thing be more then those thre partes, it is called a Prosillogisme [L. ab Aristotele..prossyllogismus dicitur].

1587 D. Fenner Def. Godlie Ministers sig. Gii Which reason with the prosilogismes of the antecedent being..reduced vnto a sillogisme,..he answered.

1611 G. Downame Def. Serm. i. ii. 57 Let vs examine his Syllogisme which with the prosyllogisme of the assumption hee propoundeth as the Analysis of the whole body of my Sermon.

1697 tr. F. Burgersdijck Monitio Logica ii. xiii. 58 A Prosyllogism is then when two Syllogisms are so contained in five Propositions, as, that the Conclusion of the First becomes the Major or Minor of the Following, as, For Example, this; Every living thing is nourished; But every Plant is a living thing; And therefore every Plant is nourished. But no Stones are nourished: And therefore no Stones are Plants.

1725 I. Watts Logick iii. ii. §6. 453 A Prosyllogism is when two or more Syllogisms are so connected together, that the Conclusion of the former is the Major or the Minor of the following: as, Blood can't think; but the Soul of Man thinks; therefore the Soul of Man is not Blood; but the Soul of a Brute is his Blood according to the Scripture; therefore the Soul of Man is different from the Soul of a Brute.

1870 W. S. Jevons Elem. Lessons Logic xviii. 155 The peculiar name Epicheirema is given to a syllogism when either premise is proved or supported by a reason implying the existence of an imperfectly expressed prosyllogism.

1896 J. Welton Man. Logic (ed. 2) I. 391 The progress of thought has been from prosyllogism to episyllogism. Such a demonstration is called Progressive, Episyllogistic, or Synthetic.

1949 Philos. Sci. 16 99 The substitution of ‘Necessarily, all X is S’ for ‘Necessarily, some M is S’, together with a prosyllogism proving ‘All X is P’ and its converse ‘Some P is X’, provides the basis for a conclusion ‘Necessarily, some S is P’.

1988 L. W. Doob Inevitability i. 4 Leibniz denies the minor premise; he refutes it by means of a prosyllogism in order to retain both his metaphysical doctrine of inevitability and his faith in God.

1652 T. Urquhart Εκσκυβαλαυρον 277 Mounting the scale of their probation upon the prosyllogistick steps of variously-amplified confirmations.

1588 A. Fraunce Lawiers Logike i. iii. f. 19 This nowe is a new and prosyllogisticall argument, fet from the very naturall definition of the argument it selfe.