It is a general rule in dealing with arguments that depend on language that the solution always follows the opposite of the point on which the argument turns: e.g.if the argument depends upon combination, then the solution consists in division; if upon division, then in combination.Again, if it depends on an acute accent, the solution is a grave accent; if on a grave accent, it is an acute.If it depends on ambiguity, one can solve it by using the opposite term; e.g.if you find yourself calling something inanimate, despite your previous denial that it was so, show in what sense it is alive:
if, on the other hand, one has declared it to be inanimate and the sophist has proved it to be animate, say how it is inanimate.Likewise also in a case of amphiboly.If the argument depends on likeness of expression, the opposite will be the solution.'Could a man give what he has not got? 'No, not what he has not got; but he could give it in a way in which he has not got it, e.g.one die by itself.'
Does a man know either by learning or by discovery each thing that he knows, singly? but not the things that he knows, collectively.'
Also a man treads, perhaps, on any thing he walks through, but not on the time he walks through.Likewise also in the case of the other examples.
