Kitap 1
2.8
But for purposes of demonstration, real or apparent, just as Dialectic possesses two modes of argument, induction and the syllogism, real or apparent, the same is the case in Rhetoric; for the example is induction, and the enthymeme a syllogism, and the apparent enthymeme an apparent syllogism. Accordingly I call an enthymeme a rhetorical syllogism, and an example rhetorical induction. Now all orators produce belief by employing as proofs either examples or enthymemes and nothing else; so that if, generally speaking, it is necessary to prove any fact whatever either by syllogism or by induction—and that this is so is clear from the AnalyticsAristot. Pr. Anal. 2.23; Aristot. Post. Anal. 1.1.—each of the two former must be identical with each of the two latter.That is, enthymeme and example must be the same as syllogism and induction.
2.9
The difference between example and enthymeme is evident from the Topics,From the definitions of syllogism (1.1) and induction (1.12). No particular passage, however, explains the difference here mentioned. where, in discussing syllogism and induction, it has previously been said that the proof from a number of particular cases that such is the rule, is called in Dialectic induction, in Rhetoric example; but when, certain things being posited, something different results by reason of them, alongside of them, from their being true, either universally or in most cases, such a conclusion in Dialectic is called a syllogism, in Rhetoric an enthymeme.
