Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy. The formal fallacy of affirming a disjunct also known as the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or a false exclusionary disjunct occurs when a deductive argument takes the following logical form: [1] A or B A Therefore, not B. Or in logical operators:
A letter of comfort, sometimes called a "letter of intent", is a communication from a party to a contract to the other party that indicates an initial willingness to enter into a contractual obligation absent the elements of a legally enforceable contract. The objective is to create a morally binding but not legally binding assurance.
Example 1. One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example: If someone lives in San Diego, then they live in California. Joe lives in California. Therefore, Joe lives in San Diego. There are many places to live in California other than San Diego.
Organized labour portal; A side letter, or side agreement, is a collective bargaining agreement that is not part of the underlying or primary collective bargaining agreement (CBA) but is used by the parties to the contract to reach agreement on issues that the CBA does not cover, to clarify issues in the CBA or to modify the CBA (permanently or temporarily).
In classical logic, disjunctive syllogism [1] [2] (historically known as modus tollendo ponens (MTP), [3] Latin for "mode that affirms by denying") [4] is a valid argument form which is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement for one of its premises.
A standard form contract (sometimes referred to as a contract of adhesion, a leonine contract, [a] a take-it-or-leave-it contract, or a boilerplate contract) is a contract between two parties, where the terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties, and the other party has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms and is thus placed in a "take it or leave it ...
In the law of contracts, the mirror image rule, also referred to as an unequivocal and absolute acceptance requirement, states that an offer must be accepted exactly with no modifications. [1] The offeror is the master of their own offer.
Another example is: If I am President of the United States, then I can veto Congress. I am not President. Therefore, I cannot veto Congress. [This is a case of the fallacy denying the antecedent as written because it matches the formal symbolic schema at beginning. The form is taken without regard to the content of the language.]