These do not follow logically: “I’m richer than you, therefore I’m better than you,” and “I’m more eloquent than you, therefore I’m better than you.” Instead the logical reasonings are: “I’m richer than you, therefore I have more money than you,” and “I’m more eloquent than you, therefore my style is better than yours.” But you, friend, are neither money nor speaking.

The following statements constitute a non sequitur: “I am richer than you are, therefore I am superior to you”; or, “I am more eloquent than you are, therefore I am superior to you.” But the following conclusions are better: “I am richer than you are, therefore my property is superior to yours”; or, “I am more eloquent than you are, therefore my elocution is superior to yours.” But you are neither property nor elocution.

It is illogical to reason thus, ‘I am richer than you, therefore I am superior to you’, ‘I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am superior to you.’ It is more logical to reason, ‘I am richer than you, therefore my property is superior to yours’, ‘I am more eloquent than you, therefore my speech is superior to yours.’ You are something more than property or speech.

These reasonings do not cohere: I am richer than you, therefore I am better than you; I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am better than you. On the contrary these rather cohere, I am richer than you, therefore my possessions are greater than yours: I am more eloquent than you, therefore my speech is superior to yours. But you are neither possession nor speech.

There is no nexus in the following reasonings: I am richer than you, therefore I am superior to you; I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am superior. But the nexus is rather in these: I am richer than you, therefore my wealth is superior to yours; I am more eloquent than you, therefore my language is superior to yours. But you are not wealth, and you are not language.

These reasonings have no logical connection: “I am richer than you; therefore I am your superior.” “I am more eloquent than you; therefore I am your superior.” The true logical connection is rather this: “I am richer than you; therefore my possessions must exceed yours.” ” I am more eloquent than you; therefore my style must surpass yours.” But you, after all, consist neither in property nor in style.

These reasonings are unconnected: “I am richer than you, therefore I am better”; “I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am better.” The connection is rather this: “I am richer than you, therefore my property is greater than yours;” “I am more eloquent than you, therefore my style is better than yours.” But you, after all, are neither property nor style.

Οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι ἀσύνακτοι «ἐγώ σου πλουσιώτερός εἰμι, ἐγώ σου ἄρα κρείσσων»: «ἐγώ σου λογιώτερος, ἐγώ σου ἄρα κρείσσων». ἐκεῖνοι δὲ μᾶλλον συνακτικοί «ἐγώ σου πλουσιώτερός εἰμι, ἡ ἐμὴ ἄρα κτῆσις τῆς σῆς κρείσσων»: «ἐγώ σου λογιώτερος, ἡ ἐμὴ ἄρα λέξις τῆς σῆς κρείσσων». σὺ δέ γε οὔτε κτῆσις εἶ οὔτε λέξις.