pratibimbanam api vyartham eva, yatas tasmin pakṣadharmamātre hetuvacanena prāgukte sati sādhyadharmeṇa ca tasya vyāptau kathitāyāṃ vivakṣitārthasaṃsiddher ucyamānaṃ sphuṭataram eva punaruktāmāvahatīti kuto 'trāpyasiddhatā hetoḥ
The Representment too is entirely useless, because when the mere property-of-the-Subject has been previously stated through the Statement of Reason, and its pervasion by the property-to-be-proved has [also] been stated, the intended meaning is accomplished; thus what is [subsequently] stated clearly amounts to mere repetition, so how could there be any inadmissibility of the Reason here either?