 The main targets of Vives’ criticism are Peter of Spain’s Summule logicales, a work dating from the thirteenth century but which still held an important place in the university curriculum, and the theory of the property of terms, a semantic theory dealing with properties of linguistic expressions such as signification, i.e., the meaning of a word regardless of context, and supposition, i.e., the meaning of a word within the context of its use in a proposition. He repudiates the use of technical jargon, accessible only to a narrow group of professionals, and maintains that if scholastic logicians made an effort to speak plainly and according to common usage, many of their conundrums would disappear. Instead, they choose to fritter away their ingenuity on logically ambiguous propositions known as sophismata. Vives provides many examples of such propositions, which in his view make no sense whatever and are certainly of no use. Many of these, such as “Some animal is not man, therefore some man is not animal” (III, 54), were standard scholastic examples. Others, such as “Only any non-donkey c of any man except Socrates and another c belonging to this same man begins contingently to be black” (III, 40), are intended as a mockery of the futile quibbling he associated with scholastic method. Since dialectic, like rhetoric and grammar, deals with language, its rules should be adapted to the rules of ordinary language; but with what language, he asks, have these propositions to do? Moreover, dialectic should not be learned for its own sake, but as a support for the other arts; therefore, no more effort should be spent on it than is absolutely necessary. Vives’ criticism is also informed by ethical concerns and the demand for a method that would be of use in everyday life rather than in academic disputations. In contrast to the standard interpretation, it has been argued that In pseudodialecticos is not a serious refutation of scholasticism, but rather a sophistical exercise replete with fallacious arguments, whose purpose is to teach a valuable lesson in scholastic dialectic challenging the reader to detect the many logical fallacies that it contains. According to this interpretation, In pseudodialecticos offers no serious arguments against scholastic logical theory or principles (see Perreiah, 2014, ch.4). 