{"result_id":"R-d744378a9776dfdb","service":{"name":"SPXI-gnΩsis","version":"0.19.7","protocol":"EA-WIKI-OPEN-01 v1.1 (#1697)"},"tier":"commission","article":{"title":"Sophistical Refutations","oldid":1361634710,"url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophistical_Refutations&oldid=1361634710","html_sha256":"7727a8a109aa05f51aa83e2bad5db2acdd7a508b7b6b225d98b626330e937cef"},"licence_note":"Wikipedia sentences are CC BY-SA 4.0, attributed to the revision URL; the service's account is licensed to the caller under the service terms.","notice":"The treatment of this article's entities by composing systems may be recorded and measured.","non":{"row":"sophistical-refutations","entity_page":"https://www.alexanarch.org/non/sophistical-refutations/","composed":true,"complete":true,"coverage":{"composed":true,"budget_exhausted":false,"failed_passes":0,"passes_not_run":0,"audit_complete":true},"case":"witness","rho":"constructs","breaches_recorded":87,"from_ledger":false,"stages":{"reading":{"delivered":true,"from_checkpoint":"2026-10-25T07:16:11.243Z"},"construction":{"delivered":true}},"dossier":"/v1/results/R-d744378a9776dfdb/landing","licence":"CC BY 4.0","publication":{"state":"checked","stages":{"composed":true,"checked":true,"landed":false,"public":{"observed":false,"detail":"not checked"}},"row":"sophistical-refutations","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/non/sophistical-refutations/","row_sha256":"5c5226510aaba389682c1f4e25375847da9b029f55799bcaa2fcc7351f580294","provenance":null,"note":"the row awaits landing in the archive (the operator's act); its landing tree is held by the service under its execution key"},"publication_endpoint":"/v1/results/R-d744378a9776dfdb/publication"},"summary":{"claims":8,"cited":8,"completed":8,"contested":6,"withheld":0,"unread":0,"from_ledger":8},"entries":[{"id":"W1","section":"lead","sentence":"Sophistical Refutations (Greek: Σοφιστικοὶ Ἔλεγχοι, romanized: Sophistikoi Elenchoi; Latin: De Sophisticis Elenchis) is a text in Aristotle's Organon in which he identified twelve or thirteen fallacies.","status":"concordant","from_ledger":true,"cited":false,"support":["partially-supported","unresolved"],"support_source":["elsewhere in the article"],"innocent_reading":"The sentence is a lead definition: the work is a text in the Organon (S2 lists On Sophistical Refutations among the Organon treatises) in which Aristotle classifies fallacies, giving a count of twelve or thirteen. The hedged count reflects scholarly disagreement over how to tally the types, and the lead may rest on the body of the article rather than on S1/S2 for the number.","innocent_reading_fails_at":"The number twelve or thirteen: neither S1 nor S2 passages supplied state a count of twelve or thirteen. S1 shows six language-dependent kinds are not enumerated in the passages sent, plus 'seven kinds' independent of language (partial list), which would sum to thirteen only if the language group has six; S1's passage truncates before settling the sum. The 'twelve or thirteen' hedge is not given by S1 or S2 in the passages supplied.","operation":"Aristotle classifies the sources of apparent refutation, dividing them into those depending on language and those independent of it, and tests each against the definition of refutation.","converted":true,"attributization":{"value":"partial","attribute":"identified twelve or thirteen fallacies (a numerical property of the text)","reason":"The sentence compresses a classificatory act into a count; the division into two families and the reduction to breaches of the definition of refutation do not survive."},"retained_authority":{"value":"mixed","evidence":"The existence and type of the classification are retained; the count is presented as fixed (with a hedge) though the sources supplied do not settle it and the tally depends on how modes are grouped (Part 6 offers an alternative single-principle reduction).","revision_required":"Attribute the count explicitly (e.g. 'which scholars count as twelve or thirteen') and note the division into language-dependent and language-independent fallacies."},"what_the_source_says":"On Sophistical Refutations is one of the logical treatises grouped as the Organon; in it Aristotle classifies sophistical (apparent) refutations, distinguishing fallacies that depend on language from seven kinds that do not.","deltas":[{"sentence_says":"a text in Aristotle's Organon","source_says":"The ancient commentators grouped together several of Aristotle's treatises under the title Organon and regarded them as comprising his logical works: ... On Sophistical Refutations","kind":"none","measure":"source fidelity","lambda":null},{"sentence_says":"he identified twelve or thirteen fallacies","source_says":"fallacies ... independent of language there are seven kinds (the language-dependent group is cut off in the supplied passages)","kind":"scope","measure":"source fidelity","lambda":4},{"sentence_says":"identified ... fallacies","source_says":"Aristotle's remark that he is classing arguments that appear to be refutations; S2: arguments that 'only apparently establish their conclusions'","kind":"term changed","measure":"primary-text adequacy","lambda":4}],"changes":["a text in Aristotle's Organon (source: The ancient commentators grouped together several of Aristotle's treatises under the title Organon and regarded them as comprising his logical works: ... On Sophistical Refutations) · none · source fidelity","he identified twelve or thirteen fallacies (source: fallacies ... independent of language there are seven kinds (the language-dependent group is cut off in the supplied passages)) · scope · source fidelity · λ 4","identified ... fallacies (source: Aristotle's remark that he is classing arguments that appear to be refutations; S2: arguments that 'only apparently establish their conclusions') · term changed · primary-text adequacy · λ 4"],"divided":[{"phrase":"twelve or thirteen fallacies","readings":["The count of fallacy types in the classification (six or so language-dependent plus seven independent, giving thirteen, or twelve on a different tally)","A count of modes of apparent refutation, which Aristotle also presents as breaches of the definition of refutation (S1 Part 6), a different grouping than a list of fallacies"]}],"invitation":{"codes":["not-applicable"],"qualification":null,"closure":null,"note":"The source holds nothing out for the audience's judgment in a way the lead sentence could preserve or foreclose.","status":"prospective (EA-WIKI-OPEN-01 v1.1 §9.7): recorded, not counted"},"alternatives":["The count appears in the article body or in other sources (e.g. a different edition or commentary) and is supported there, only not in the passages supplied.","The 'twelve or thirteen' hedge is an editorial reconciliation of differing tallies of the language-dependent group (six vs. five) and is supported by Pickard-Cambridge's own enumeration if the full text is read."],"correction_pathway":"Retrieve S1 Part 4's full enumeration of language-dependent fallacies (ambiguity, amphiboly, combination, division, accent, form of expression) and sum with the seven independent kinds; check S2 or other cited sources for a stated count. If six plus seven, the sentence's 'thirteen' is supported and 'twelve' would need a source.","five_part":{"support":"S2 supports the work's place in the Organon and that it is an appendix to the Topics; S1 supports a division of fallacies into language-dependent and seven independent kinds.","changes":"The sentence adds a specific count (twelve or thirteen) not stated in the supplied passages and drops the two-family division.","alternative":"The count follows from S1's own enumeration (six plus seven) and the 'or' marks a known scholarly variance in tallying.","status":"Organon membership: verified. Seven independent kinds: verified. Language-dependent count and the 'twelve' variant: unresolved.","revision":"Full S1 Part 4 enumeration or a source stating the tally would settle the count."},"invitation_differs":{"status":"prospective; recorded, not counted","readings":[["not-applicable"],[]]},"sources":[{"ref":"S1","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Aristotle; Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. \"On Sophistical Refutations\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.mb.txt","availability":"fetched"},{"ref":"S2","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Edward N. Zalta, ed. (18 March 2000). \"Aristotle's Logic, < Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy>\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/aristotle-logic/","availability":"fetched"}],"spans":[{"quote":"On Sophistical Refutations","source_ref":"S2","role":"support"},{"quote":"Of fallacies, on the other hand, that are independent of language there are seven kinds","source_ref":"S1","role":"scope"},{"quote":"On Sophistical Refutations is a final section, or an appendix, to the Topics","source_ref":"S2","role":"support"},{"quote":"identified twelve or thirteen fallacies","source_ref":"claim","role":"contrast"}],"archive":{"bears":"revises","note":"Field ledger gives six plus seven kinds (thirteen); the archive reads the hedge 'twelve or thirteen' as contradicting itself against the article's own list and the act as surviving as 'identified' while exhaustiveness does not; the hedge originates in a 2025 footnote folded into text.","claims":[{"id":"SR1697-11","dep":1697,"locus":"§6.5, W1","quote":"so the article contradicts its hedge at λ = 2 (found by ChatGPT, Assembly round 02)","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"},{"id":"SR1697-12","dep":1697,"locus":"§6.5, W1","quote":"The act survives as \"identified\"; its exhaustiveness does not.","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"},{"id":"SR1697-21","dep":1697,"locus":"W1 history (revision 1329089068)","quote":"folds a footnote, \"Sometimes listed as twelve.\", into the text","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"}]}},{"id":"W2","section":"lead","sentence":"According to Aristotle, this is the first work to treat the subject of deductive reasoning in ancient Greece (Soph. Ref., 34, 183b34 ff.).","status":"contested","from_ledger":true,"cited":true,"support":null,"support_source":null,"innocent_reading":null,"innocent_reading_fails_at":null,"operation":null,"converted":null,"attributization":null,"retained_authority":null,"what_the_source_says":null,"deltas":[],"changes":[],"invitation":null,"alternatives":[],"correction_pathway":null,"five_part":null,"invitation_differs":{"status":"prospective; recorded, not counted","readings":[["omitted"],[]]},"sources":[{"ref":"S1","kind":"classical","located":"at the sentence","label":"Aristotle, De sophisticis elenchis","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/First1KGreek/7881c563436f52fb3550e6daa6df94be1b83b0e3/data/tlg0086/tlg040/tlg0086.tlg040.1st1K-grc1.xml","availability":"fetched"},{"ref":"S2","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Edward N. Zalta, ed. (18 March 2000). \"Aristotle's Logic, < Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy>\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/aristotle-logic/","availability":"fetched"},{"ref":"S3","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Aristotle; Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. \"On Sophistical Refutations\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.mb.txt","availability":"fetched"},{"ref":"S4","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Krabbe, E.C.W. (2012). \"Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations\". Topoi. 31: 243–248. doi:10.1007/s11245-012-9124-0. hdl:11370/9e6b3574-e6b1-4b91-bbe4-78954ac9ea80. S2CID 170350834.","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-012-9124-0","availability":"fetched"}],"readings":[{"support":["partially-supported","interpretation-beyond-paraphrase"],"attributization":"partial","converted":true,"retained_authority":"mixed","paraphrase":"Aristotle says that on the subject of syllogizing (reasoning by deduction) he had nothing earlier to draw on, and that none of this inquiry had been worked out before him; he contrasts this with rhetoric, which had many old treatments.","changes":["this is the first work (source: this 'pragmateia' (inquiry/treatise on the method) had no prior work at all) · scope · source fidelity · λ 2","the first work to treat the subject of deductive reasoning (source: nothing earlier on 'συλλογίζεσθαι' (syllogizing); the inquiry is the dialectical-sophistic method of arguing and answering, not deduction in general) · term changed · source fidelity · λ 4","in ancient Greece · qualifier added · source fidelity","According to Aristotle, this is the first work (source: Aristotle's closing remarks survey the whole method (Topics through this book) as new; the Sophistical Refutations is, per S2, an appendix to the Topics) · equivalence asserted · operative retention · λ 2"],"innocent_reading":"The cited chapter says that for the method of syllogizing, nothing earlier existed ('περὶ δὲ τοῦ συλλογίζεσθαι παντελῶς οὐδὲν εἴχομεν πρότερον'), and that of this whole treatise 'οὐδὲν παντελῶς ὑπῆρχεν'. 'This work' is a natural shorthand for Aristotle's treatment of syllogizing (whether the Sophistical Refutations itself, or the Topics–Organon investigation of which it is the closing section), and 'in ancient Greece' is the only world Aristotle's pre-existing predecessors could inhabit. So the sentence is a defensible paraphrase of the closing claim of priority."},{"support":["qualifier-added","partially-supported"],"attributization":"partial","converted":true,"retained_authority":"mixed","paraphrase":"Aristotle says that on syllogizing (and on this methodical treatment) he had no prior work to draw on, whereas rhetoric had much earlier material, so his own treatment started from nothing.","changes":[]}],"differs":["support"],"spans":[{"quote":"περὶ δὲ τοῦ συλλογίζεσθαι παντελῶς οὐδὲν εἴχομεν πρότερον ἄλλο λέγειν","source_ref":"S1","role":"support"},{"quote":"Ταύτης δὲ τῆς πραγματείας οὐ τὸ μὲν ἦν τὸ δ᾿ οὐκ ἦν προεξειργασμένον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲν παντελῶς ὑπῆρχεν","source_ref":"S1","role":"support"},{"quote":"Καὶ περὶ μὲν τῶν ῥητορικῶν ὑπῆρχε πολλὰ καὶ παλαιὰ τὰ λεγόμενα","source_ref":"S1","role":"contrast"},{"quote":"On Sophistical Refutations is a final section, or an appendix, to the Topics","source_ref":"S2","role":"scope"},{"quote":"According to Aristotle, this is the first work to treat the subject of deductive reasoning in ancient Greece","source_ref":"claim","role":"scope"},{"quote":"περὶ δὲ τοῦ συλλογίζεσθαι παντελῶς οὐδὲν εἴχομεν πρότερον ἄλλο λέγειν","source_ref":"S1","role":"support"},{"quote":"Ταύτης δὲ τῆς πραγματείας οὐ τὸ μὲν ἦν τὸ δ᾿ οὐκ ἦν προεξειργασμένον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲν παντελῶς ὑπῆρχεν.","source_ref":"S1","role":"support"},{"quote":"According to Aristotle, this is the first work to treat the subject of deductive reasoning in ancient Greece","source_ref":"claim","role":"scope"}],"archive":{"bears":"revises","note":"Aristotle's total negation (nothing at all preceded) is converted by the article into the attribute 'first work to treat', which the archive reads as operation turned into property; the archive's literal reading of 183b34-36 keeps the negation.","claims":[{"id":"SR1696-05","dep":1696,"locus":"§1.6, second specimen (encyclopedia)","quote":"\"about syllogizing we had absolutely nothing else earlier to say,\" becomes, in the lead of \"Sophistical Refutations,\" the attribute \"the first work to treat the subject of deductive reasoning.\"","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1696/"},{"id":"SR1696-06","dep":1696,"locus":"§1.6, second specimen (encyclopedia)","quote":"A total negation over a stated domain becomes a property, primacy (§6).","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1696/"},{"id":"SR1697-04","dep":1697,"locus":"§1.6, second specimen (encyclopedia)","quote":"A total negation over a stated domain becomes a property, primacy (§6).","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"},{"id":"SR1603-01","dep":1603,"locus":"Abstract","quote":"At the end of the *Sophistical Refutations* Aristotle denies that anything of his inquiry existed before it: οὐδὲν παντελῶς ὑπῆρχεν.","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1603/"},{"id":"SRblog-43","dep":null,"record":{"kind":"blog post","title":"The Particle: Provenance Erasure at Sophistical Refutations 183b34, Measured — Machine-Mediated Reception, Disciplinary Model Collapse, and the World Soul as Degraded Commodity (EA-RECEPTION-PARTICLE-01 v0.2) Lee Sharks · 2026-09-02 · Empirical baseline reading; reception-layer measurement on a canonical text (Capture Registry derivative) · v0.2 — 2026-09-02. v0.1 revised on two model reviews of the write-up: controlling sentence at the head; empirical result separated from interpretation (§§5–8 marked as interpretations of §3); counts corrected to twenty model reports plus one seed observation; \"disciplinary model collapse\" defined as the author's term; §8 labelled theoretical extension; §9 limit sharpened. AXN:0666.EMPIRICAL.↗️📚❄️🔩➗⭐","url":"https://mindcontrolpoems.blogspot.com/2026/09/the-particle-provenance-erasure-at.html","published":"2026-09-02"},"locus":"Description (abstract)","quote":"the terminal round, reached by full compliance with every instruction, endorsed as the paper's \"memorable governing phrase\" a sentence that is Aristotle's with one particle removed: οὐ.","url":"https://mindcontrolpoems.blogspot.com/2026/09/the-particle-provenance-erasure-at.html"}]}},{"id":"W3","section":"lead","sentence":"In it, he attempts to develop a pattern of sound and genuine reasoning in opposition to the deceptive or misleading \"art of sophistry\".","status":"contested","from_ledger":true,"cited":false,"support":null,"support_source":null,"innocent_reading":null,"innocent_reading_fails_at":null,"operation":null,"converted":null,"attributization":null,"retained_authority":null,"what_the_source_says":null,"deltas":[],"changes":[],"invitation":null,"alternatives":[],"correction_pathway":null,"five_part":null,"invitation_differs":{"status":"prospective; recorded, not counted","readings":[["not-applicable"],[]]},"sources":[{"ref":"S1","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Aristotle; Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. \"On Sophistical Refutations\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.mb.txt","availability":"fetched"},{"ref":"S2","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Edward N. Zalta, ed. (18 March 2000). \"Aristotle's Logic, < Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy>\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/aristotle-logic/","availability":"fetched"},{"ref":"S3","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Krabbe, E.C.W. (2012). \"Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations\". Topoi. 31: 243–248. doi:10.1007/s11245-012-9124-0. hdl:11370/9e6b3574-e6b1-4b91-bbe4-78954ac9ea80. S2CID 170350834.","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-012-9124-0","availability":"fetched"}],"readings":[{"support":["partially-supported","qualifier-added"],"attributization":"no","converted":false,"retained_authority":"mixed","paraphrase":"Aristotle distinguishes genuine from merely apparent reasoning and refutation, treats sophistry as an art of apparent wisdom for money, and aims to equip the reader to detect and answer such arguments while defending a thesis from generally accepted views.","changes":["he attempts to develop a pattern of sound and genuine reasoning (source: Our programme was, then, to discover some faculty of reasoning about any theme put before us from the most generally accepted premisses) · term changed · source fidelity · λ 4","in opposition to the deceptive or misleading \"art of sophistry\" (source: the art of sophistry is, as we said, a kind of art of money-making from a merely apparent wisdom) · scope · source fidelity · λ 4","attempts (source: Of this inquiry ... Nothing existed at all.) · hedge · source fidelity · λ 4","sound and genuine reasoning (source: apparent but not real reasoning and refutation, with defence by generally held views) · equivalence asserted · operative retention · λ 4"],"innocent_reading":"The Greek treatise contrasts genuine reasoning with merely apparent reasoning and defines sophistry as the semblance of wisdom without the reality. Aristotle's stated programme is to find a faculty of reasoning from generally accepted premises and to be able to examine others, and S2 describes sophistical arguments as only apparently establishing their conclusions. A lead sentence saying he sets sound reasoning against deceptive sophistry is a fair compression of S1 and S2 taken together, in the register of an encyclopedia lead."},{"support":["partially-supported","qualifier-added"],"attributization":"partial","converted":true,"retained_authority":"mixed","paraphrase":"In the work Aristotle sets out to analyse sophistical refutations, i.e. apparent but not genuine refutations, and to develop the ability to distinguish such sham reasoning from genuine reasoning and to defend a thesis without falling into them.","changes":[]}],"differs":["attributization"],"spans":[{"quote":"the art of the sophist is the semblance of wisdom without the reality","source_ref":"S1","role":"support"},{"quote":"That some reasonings are genuine, while others seem to be so but are","source_ref":"S1","role":"support"},{"quote":"Our programme was, then, to discover some faculty of reasoning about","source_ref":"S1","role":"scope"},{"quote":"arguments which only apparently establish their conclusions","source_ref":"S2","role":"support"},{"quote":"a kind of art of money-making","source_ref":"S1","role":"contrast"},{"quote":"Let us now discuss sophistic refutations, i.e. what appear to be refutations but are really fallacies instead.","source_ref":"S1","role":"support"},{"quote":"the art of the sophist is the semblance of wisdom without the reality","source_ref":"S1","role":"support"},{"quote":"to discover some faculty of reasoning about any theme put before us from the most generally accepted premisses that there are","source_ref":"S1","role":"contrast"},{"quote":"he also studies what he calls contentious ( eristikos ) or sophistical arguments: these he defines as arguments which only apparently establish their conclusions","source_ref":"S2","role":"support"}],"archive":{"bears":"revises","note":"The 'pattern of sound and genuine reasoning in opposition to sophistry' substitutes a truth-normative aim for the endoxic capacity and drops the premisses; Krabbe calls the work useful to sophists, so the opposition is contradicted.","claims":[{"id":"SR1697-13","dep":1697,"locus":"§6.5, W3","quote":"it substitutes a truth-normative pattern for the endoxic capacity and drops the premisses, which are the programme's scope","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"},{"id":"SR1697-14","dep":1697,"locus":"§6.5, W3","quote":"Krabbe calls it \"a useful treatise for sophists: they should study fallacies not to avoid them, but rather to commit them when it suits their purposes (SE 1, 165a28–31)\"","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"}]}},{"id":"W4","section":"Overview","sentence":"On Sophistical Refutations consists of 34 chapters.","status":"single-valid","from_ledger":true,"cited":true,"support":["supported"],"support_source":["at the sentence"],"innocent_reading":"The cited translation (S1) is divided into 'Part 1' through 'Part 34', and the structure summary counts 34 Parts with max 34. Describing these Parts as 'chapters' is the ordinary English label for the numbered divisions of a classical treatise, so the sentence faithfully reports the work's division.","innocent_reading_fails_at":null,"operation":"The source divides the treatise into numbered sections (Parts 1 to 34); no argument or evaluative act is reported.","converted":false,"attributization":{"value":"no","attribute":null,"reason":"The sentence reports a structural count, not a credential, priority or category membership; there is no act to restate as a property."},"retained_authority":{"value":"retained","evidence":"A bare count of divisions leaves nothing for an operation to carry; the count matches the counted markers in S1.","revision_required":"None. If desired, 'Parts' could be used to match the translation's label, but 'chapters' keeps the substance."},"what_the_source_says":"The treatise, in the Pickard-Cambridge translation, is divided into 34 numbered Parts.","deltas":[{"sentence_says":"34 chapters","source_says":"34 Parts (structure summary: Part count 34, max 34)","kind":"term changed","measure":"source fidelity","lambda":null}],"changes":["34 chapters (source: 34 Parts (structure summary: Part count 34, max 34)) · term changed · source fidelity"],"invitation":{"codes":["not-applicable"],"qualification":null,"closure":null,"note":"The source holds nothing out for the audience's judgment regarding the number of divisions.","status":"prospective (EA-WIKI-OPEN-01 v1.1 §9.7): recorded, not counted"},"alternatives":["Other editions or translations may divide the treatise differently (e.g. the Bekker numbering counts 34 chapters, so no conflict is expected, but the cited source is the only division checked here)."],"correction_pathway":"A different standard division of the Greek text into other than 34 chapters, or a miscount in the structure summary, would revise this; neither appears in the supplied materials.","five_part":{"support":"S1's structure summary counts 34 Parts (max 34), and the passages show 'Part 1', 'Part 8', 'Part 9'.","changes":"The sentence calls the Parts 'chapters', a conventional equivalence that keeps the substance.","alternative":"A different edition could number the divisions differently, but the cited translation matches 34.","status":"Verified for source fidelity: the structure count of 34 Parts is checkable; the 'chapters' vs 'Parts' term is verified as a wording difference without change of substance.","revision":"A cited source showing a different number of divisions would revise this."},"sources":[{"ref":"S1","kind":"footnote","located":"at the sentence","label":"Aristotle; Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. \"On Sophistical Refutations\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.mb.txt","availability":"fetched"},{"ref":"S2","kind":"footnote","located":"at the sentence","label":"Edward N. Zalta, ed. (18 March 2000). \"Aristotle's Logic, < Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy>\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/aristotle-logic/","availability":"fetched"}],"spans":[{"quote":"Part 1","source_ref":"S1","role":"support"},{"quote":"Part 8","source_ref":"S1","role":"support"},{"quote":"Part 9","source_ref":"S1","role":"support"},{"quote":"On Sophistical Refutations consists of 34 chapters.","source_ref":"claim","role":"scope"}],"archive":{"bears":"supports","note":"The 34-chapter count is not on the field ledger; the archive finds W4-W6 faithful to Krabbe, with no attributization.","claims":[{"id":"SR1697-15","dep":1697,"locus":"§6.5, W4–W6","quote":"No attributization: the operation survives.","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"}]}},{"id":"W5","section":"Overview","sentence":"The book naturally falls in two parts: chapters concerned with tactics for the Questioner (3–8 and 12–15) and chapters concerned with tactics for the Answerer (16–32).","status":"contested","from_ledger":true,"cited":false,"support":null,"support_source":null,"innocent_reading":null,"innocent_reading_fails_at":null,"operation":null,"converted":null,"attributization":null,"retained_authority":null,"what_the_source_says":null,"deltas":[],"changes":[],"invitation":null,"alternatives":[],"correction_pathway":null,"five_part":null,"invitation_differs":{"status":"prospective; recorded, not counted","readings":[["not-applicable"],[]]},"sources":[{"ref":"S1","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Edward N. Zalta, ed. (18 March 2000). \"Aristotle's Logic, < Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy>\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/aristotle-logic/","availability":"fetched"},{"ref":"S2","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Aristotle; Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. \"On Sophistical Refutations\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.mb.txt","availability":"fetched"},{"ref":"S3","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Krabbe, E.C.W. (2012). \"Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations\". Topoi. 31: 243–248. doi:10.1007/s11245-012-9124-0. hdl:11370/9e6b3574-e6b1-4b91-bbe4-78954ac9ea80. S2CID 170350834.","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-012-9124-0","availability":"fetched"}],"readings":[{"support":["partially-supported","unresolved"],"attributization":"no","converted":false,"retained_authority":"unknown","paraphrase":"Aristotle treats the sources of questions and questioning methods for the contentious Questioner, then, from Part 16, answering and solutions; Part 17 onward is thus answerer-side.","changes":["chapters concerned with tactics for the Questioner (3–8 and 12–15) (source: Part 3 introduces the five aims; Parts 4-8 appear to survey fallacy types and their sources (the apparent-syllogism side), and Part 12 begins questioning for fallacy and paradox) · scope · source fidelity","chapters concerned with tactics for the Answerer (16–32) (source: Part 16 states the turn to answering and solutions, but Parts 17-32 include the discussion of fallacy-by-fallacy solutions and Part 33 onward is not covered) · scope · source fidelity","The book naturally falls in two parts · idea introduced · operative retention","3–8 and 12–15 as the Questioner's tactics (source: Parts 4-8 analyse the types and sources of fallacies and refutations, not tactics as such) · equivalence asserted · operative retention"],"innocent_reading":"The sentence is an uncited summary of the treatise's organization. Part 3 opens with the five aims of contentious arguers; Parts 12-15 treat drawing the answerer into fallacy/paradox/solecism/babbling via questioning, and Part 16 opens with 'next we have to speak of answering, and of how solutions should be made' (S2). So a Questioner/Answerer two-part division is a defensible reading of the structure, and the S2 text corroborates the break at Part 16."},{"support":["unresolved"],"attributization":"no","converted":false,"retained_authority":"unknown","paraphrase":"Part 16 of S2 opens the discussion of answering and solutions, and Parts 3 onward treat the aims and methods of contentious questioners, so a broad questioner-then-answerer organisation is plausible, though the exact chapter ranges are not shown in the supplied passages.","changes":[]}],"differs":["support"],"spans":[{"quote":"next we have to speak of answering, and of how solutions should be made","source_ref":"S2","role":"support"},{"quote":"We have now therefore dealt with the sources of questions, and the methods of questioning in contentious disputations","source_ref":"S2","role":"support"},{"quote":"First we must grasp the number of aims entertained by those who argue as competitors","source_ref":"S2","role":"scope"},{"quote":"The book naturally falls in two parts","source_ref":"claim","role":"scope"},{"quote":"The book naturally falls in two parts: chapters concerned with tactics for the Questioner (3–8 and 12–15) and chapters concerned with tactics for the Answerer (16–32).","source_ref":"claim","role":"scope"},{"quote":"we have to speak of answering, and of how solutions should be made, and of what requires them","source_ref":"S2","role":"support"},{"quote":"First we must grasp the number of aims entertained by those who argue as competitors and rivals to the death.","source_ref":"S2","role":"contrast"}],"archive":{"bears":"supports","note":"Questioner and answerer roles are on the field ledger only as Academic exchange structure and yes/no examination; the archive finds the chapter division faithful.","claims":[{"id":"SR1697-15","dep":1697,"locus":"§6.5, W4–W6","quote":"No attributization: the operation survives.","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"}]}},{"id":"W6","section":"Overview","sentence":"Besides, there is an introduction (1–2), an interlude (9–11), and a conclusion (33–34).","status":"contested","from_ledger":true,"cited":true,"support":null,"support_source":null,"innocent_reading":null,"innocent_reading_fails_at":null,"operation":null,"converted":null,"attributization":null,"retained_authority":null,"what_the_source_says":null,"deltas":[],"changes":[],"invitation":null,"alternatives":[],"correction_pathway":null,"five_part":null,"invitation_differs":{"status":"prospective; recorded, not counted","readings":[["not-applicable"],[]]},"sources":[{"ref":"S1","kind":"footnote","located":"at the sentence","label":"Krabbe, E.C.W. (2012). \"Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations\". Topoi. 31: 243–248. doi:10.1007/s11245-012-9124-0. hdl:11370/9e6b3574-e6b1-4b91-bbe4-78954ac9ea80. S2CID 170350834.","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-012-9124-0","availability":"fetched"},{"ref":"S2","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Edward N. Zalta, ed. (18 March 2000). \"Aristotle's Logic, < Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy>\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/aristotle-logic/","availability":"fetched"},{"ref":"S3","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Aristotle; Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. \"On Sophistical Refutations\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.mb.txt","availability":"fetched"}],"readings":[{"support":["partially-supported","unresolved"],"attributization":"partial","converted":true,"retained_authority":"unknown","paraphrase":"The treatise (34 chapters) opens with introductory chapters (1–2) before turning to the aims and kinds of sophistical refutation. The supplied S3 text confirms that the work has 34 parts and that Part 1–2 are introductory; chapters 9–11 and 33–34 can be located only by number, not by their content.","changes":["an interlude (9–11) · idea introduced · source fidelity · λ 5","a conclusion (33–34) · omission · source fidelity · λ 5","an introduction (1–2) (source: Let us now discuss sophistic refutations... Of arguments in dialogue form there are four classes) · none · source fidelity"],"innocent_reading":"The sentence is an uncited structural overview of the treatise's chapters: an introduction (chs. 1–2, which in S3 open the work, state its subject and distinguish four classes of arguments), an interlude (9–11), and a conclusion (33–34). The cited Krabbe article (S1) is presumably an overview of the treatise's structure, and the chapter numbers are checkable against the work itself."},{"support":["unresolved"],"attributization":"no","converted":false,"retained_authority":"unknown","paraphrase":"The treatise is divided into 34 chapters, with a structural note that chapters 1-2 serve as an introduction, 9-11 as an interlude and 33-34 as a conclusion, as given by Krabbe.","changes":[]}],"differs":["support","attributization"],"spans":[{"quote":"Let us now discuss sophistic refutations, i.e. what appear to be\nrefutations but are really fallacies instead.","source_ref":"S3","role":"support"},{"quote":"Of arguments in dialogue form there are four classes:","source_ref":"S3","role":"support"},{"quote":"Client Challenge JavaScript is disabled in your browser.","source_ref":"S1","role":"scope"},{"quote":"Besides, there is an introduction (1–2), an interlude (9–11), and a conclusion (33–34).","source_ref":"claim","role":"scope"},{"quote":"Now for contentious and sophistical reasoning:","source_ref":"S3","role":"contrast"},{"quote":"Besides, there is an introduction (1–2), an interlude (9–11), and a conclusion (33–34).","source_ref":"claim","role":"scope"},{"quote":"Client Challenge JavaScript is disabled in your browser.","source_ref":"S1","role":"contrast"},{"quote":"Part 1 \n\nLet us now discuss sophistic refutations","source_ref":"S3","role":"scope"},{"quote":"SECTION 2\n\nPart 11","source_ref":"S3","role":"scope"}],"archive":{"bears":"supports","note":"The introduction, interlude and conclusion division is faithful per the archive; the conclusion's content (F42-F72) is where the archive's reading operates.","claims":[{"id":"SR1697-15","dep":1697,"locus":"§6.5, W4–W6","quote":"No attributization: the operation survives.","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"}]}},{"id":"W7","section":"Fallacies identified","sentence":"The fallacies Aristotle identifies in Chapter 4 (formal fallacies) and 5 (informal fallacies) of this book are the following:","status":"contested","from_ledger":true,"cited":false,"support":null,"support_source":null,"innocent_reading":null,"innocent_reading_fails_at":null,"operation":null,"converted":null,"attributization":null,"retained_authority":null,"what_the_source_says":null,"deltas":[],"changes":[],"invitation":null,"alternatives":[],"correction_pathway":null,"five_part":null,"invitation_differs":{"status":"prospective; recorded, not counted","readings":[["not-applicable"],[]]},"sources":[{"ref":"S1","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Edward N. Zalta, ed. (18 March 2000). \"Aristotle's Logic, < Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy>\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/aristotle-logic/","availability":"fetched"},{"ref":"S2","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Aristotle; Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. \"On Sophistical Refutations\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.mb.txt","availability":"fetched"}],"readings":[{"support":["partially-supported","interpretation-beyond-paraphrase"],"attributization":"partial","converted":true,"retained_authority":"lost","paraphrase":"Aristotle, in Part 4, divides fallacious refutations into those depending on language (six kinds: ambiguity, amphiboly, combination, division of words, accent, form of expression) and those independent of language (seven kinds, beginning with accident), and Part 5 begins discussing the independent ones, starting with accident.","changes":["Chapter 4 (formal fallacies) (source: Part 4: refutations that depend on language (six kinds), and a list of the seven kinds independent of language) · term changed · primary-text adequacy · λ 4","5 (informal fallacies) (source: Part 5 begins treating the fallacies independent of language, starting with Accident) · term changed · primary-text adequacy · λ 4","Chapter 4 ... and 5 as two kinds of fallacy (source: Part 4 itself lists both the language-dependent and the language-independent kinds; Part 5 is the start of the discussion of the seven) · scope · source fidelity · λ 4","formal / informal as the dividing line (source: dependence on language / independence of language) · equivalence asserted · operative retention · λ 4"],"innocent_reading":"Chapters 4 and 5 of On Sophistical Refutations do open the two lists (fallacies depending on language, then fallacies independent of language) that the article goes on to enumerate, and S2 divides them exactly that way. The sentence is a list-introducing frame; the list items it announces carry the substance, and the innocent reader takes the labels as a convenient shorthand for the two groups of fallacies."},{"support":["partially-supported","qualifier-added"],"attributization":"no","converted":false,"retained_authority":"mixed","paraphrase":"Aristotle lists six language-dependent and seven language-independent modes of fallacious refutation, the first set given in Part 4 and the second set introduced at the end of Part 4 and developed from Part 5 onward.","changes":[]}],"differs":["support","attributization","authority"],"spans":[{"quote":"There are two styles of refutation: for some depend on the language used, while some are independent of language.","source_ref":"S2","role":"support"},{"quote":"Those ways of producing the false appearance of an argument which depend on language are six in number","source_ref":"S2","role":"support"},{"quote":"Of fallacies, on the other hand, that are independent of language there are seven kinds:","source_ref":"S2","role":"support"},{"quote":"Fallacies, then, that depend on Accident occur whenever any attribute is claimed to belong in like manner to a thing and to its accident.","source_ref":"S2","role":"scope"},{"quote":"formal fallacies","source_ref":"claim","role":"contrast"},{"quote":"informal fallacies","source_ref":"claim","role":"contrast"},{"quote":"The fallacies Aristotle identifies in Chapter 4 (formal fallacies) and 5 (informal fallacies)","source_ref":"claim","role":"scope"},{"quote":"Those ways of producing the false appearance of an argument which depend on language are six in number","source_ref":"S2","role":"support"},{"quote":"Of fallacies, on the other hand, that are independent of language there are seven kinds","source_ref":"S2","role":"support"},{"quote":"There are two styles of refutation: for some depend on the language used, while some are independent of language.","source_ref":"S2","role":"contrast"}],"archive":{"bears":"contradicts","note":"The article assigns formal fallacies to chapter 4 and informal to 5; the field ledger gives the language/independent-of-language division in Part 4. The archive finds the labels contradict the article's own list, criterion becomes membership in a later taxonomy, and integrity unsound.","claims":[{"id":"SR1697-07","dep":1697,"locus":"§6.4, W7–W8, the Fallacies section","quote":"the article's labels contradict its list","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"},{"id":"SR1697-08","dep":1697,"locus":"§6.4, W7–W8, the Fallacies section","quote":"Attributization: yes, a stated criterion becomes membership in a later taxonomy.","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"},{"id":"SR1697-09","dep":1697,"locus":"§6.4, W7–W8, the Fallacies section","quote":"Integrity: unsound on the asserted equivalence and the narrowing; nothing in the article's sources supports either.","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"},{"id":"SR1697-20","dep":1697,"locus":"The Fallacies section history (revision 1115584076)","quote":"My source is my own reading of the text.","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"}]}},{"id":"W8","section":"Fallacies identified","sentence":"Figure of speech or form of expression","status":"contested","from_ledger":true,"cited":false,"support":null,"support_source":null,"innocent_reading":null,"innocent_reading_fails_at":null,"operation":null,"converted":null,"attributization":null,"retained_authority":null,"what_the_source_says":null,"deltas":[],"changes":[],"invitation":null,"alternatives":[],"correction_pathway":null,"five_part":null,"invitation_differs":{"status":"prospective; recorded, not counted","readings":[["not-applicable"],[]]},"sources":[{"ref":"S1","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Aristotle; Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. \"On Sophistical Refutations\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.mb.txt","availability":"fetched"},{"ref":"S2","kind":"footnote","located":"elsewhere in the article","label":"Edward N. Zalta, ed. (18 March 2000). \"Aristotle's Logic, < Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy>\". Retrieved 2020-12-19.","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/aristotle-logic/","availability":"fetched"}],"readings":[{"support":["supported"],"attributization":"no","converted":false,"retained_authority":"unknown","paraphrase":"Aristotle identifies a language-dependent fallacy arising from the form of expression, where what is really different (a quality versus an action, masculine versus feminine) is expressed in the same grammatical form.","changes":["Figure of speech or form of expression (source: the form of expression used, when what is really different is expressed in the same form) · equivalence asserted · source fidelity"],"innocent_reading":"The sentence is a list label in the 'Fallacies identified' section naming the fallacy Aristotle calls 'form of expression' (to schema tes lexeos), which the article's elsewhere-cited translation treats as one of the language-dependent fallacies; 'figure of speech' is the traditional English name for the same fallacy. As a heading-like label it asserts only that the fallacy is identified in the work under this name."},{"support":["supported"],"attributization":"no","converted":false,"retained_authority":"retained","paraphrase":"Aristotle's language-dependent fallacies include one arising from the form of expression, where different things are expressed in the same grammatical form (e.g. quality by a quantity termination, or a state by an active word).","changes":[]}],"differs":["authority"],"spans":[{"quote":"the form of expression used, when what\nis really different is expressed in the same form","source_ref":"S1","role":"support"},{"quote":"With those\nthat depend on the of expression it is because of the likeness of\nexpression.","source_ref":"S1","role":"support"},{"quote":"Figure of speech or form of expression","source_ref":"claim","role":"scope"},{"quote":"Others come about owing to the form of expression used, when what\nis really different is expressed in the same form","source_ref":"S1","role":"support"},{"quote":"Figure of speech or form of expression","source_ref":"claim","role":"scope"}],"archive":{"bears":"contradicts","note":"'Figure of speech or form of expression' is the field's sixth language-dependent kind (F12); the archive's measurement sits on the article's section headings and labels, which contradict the list they sit over.","claims":[{"id":"SR1697-07","dep":1697,"locus":"§6.4, W7–W8, the Fallacies section","quote":"the article's labels contradict its list","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"},{"id":"SR1697-09","dep":1697,"locus":"§6.4, W7–W8, the Fallacies section","quote":"Integrity: unsound on the asserted equivalence and the narrowing; nothing in the article's sources supports either.","url":"https://www.alexanarch.org/s/records/1697/"}]}}]}