C has the predicate B,
A has the predicate C,
Therefore, A has the predicate B.
In the Second Figure only mixed Ratiocinations are possible.
Pattern of Second Figure:
Subject...............Predicate
Major Term........Middle Term........Major Premise
Minor Term.........Middle Term........Minor Premise
Minor Term........Major Term...........Conclusion
The rule of the second figure is: Whatever is inconsistent with the predicate of a subject is inconsistent with the subject. This is a mixed ratiocination because an unexpressed proposition must be added in thought in order to arrive at the conclusion. If I say,
No B is C,
A is C,
Therefore, A is not B
My inference is valid only if I silently interpose the immediate inference No C is B after the first premise. It is merely the negative converse of the first premise. Without it, the ratiocination is invalid.
In the Third Figure only mixed Ratiocinations are possible.