8/12/2019 sotkc2 pertinent

1/6

8/12/2019 sotkc2 pertinent

2/6

the paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property of is presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, i ts target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably di rected against a form of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, its target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits a

particular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property of is presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, i ts target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the two

mentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot i s not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, i ts target i s theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects dif ferent fromthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot i s not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, i ts target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably directed against aform of argument which consists in an

8/12/2019 sotkc2 pertinent

3/6

extrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, its target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, i ts target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot i s not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in an

extrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, i ts target i s theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different fromthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably di rected against a form of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, its target is the

conclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property of is presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, i ts target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot i s not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, i ts target i s theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects dif ferent from

8/12/2019 sotkc2 pertinent

4/6

the paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, i ts target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, i ts target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f rom

the paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot i s not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, i ts target i s theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different fromthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand it

appears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably directed against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, its target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably di rected against a form of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, its target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property of is presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in an

8/12/2019 sotkc2 pertinent

5/6

extrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, its target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property of is presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, i ts target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot i s not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in an

extrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, i ts target i s theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot i s not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, i ts target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinent

inference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyapropertywhenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofis presumably directed against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, its target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyaproperty

whenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property ofi s presumably di rected against aform of argument which consists in anextrapolation from otherwise effective regularities to a particular case in point.This means, couched in technical terms of theory of anumna, its target is theconclusion that some particular object functioning as the paka in a pertinentinference must exhibit a particular sdhya-property given (1) that it in fact exhibits aparticular hetu-property and (2) in the realm of all (existing) objects different f romthe paka it holds good without any exception that things exhibit the sdhyaproperty

8/12/2019 sotkc2 pertinent

6/6

whenever they exhibit the hetu-property. It is easy to verify that the twomentioned requirements are satisfied in the pertinent case: On the one hand itappears hardly deniable that a pot is not a lotus, that a pot exhibits the property of