Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A premise or premiss [a] is a proposition—a true or false declarative statement—used in an argument to prove the truth of another proposition called the conclusion. [1] Arguments consist of a set of premises and a conclusion. An argument is meaningful for its conclusion only when all of its premises are true. If one or more premises are ...
Identify which statements are premises, sub-conclusions, and the main conclusion. Provide missing, implied conclusions and implied premises. (This is optional depending on the purpose of the argument map.) Put the statements into boxes and draw a line between any boxes that are linked. Indicate support from premise(s) to (sub)conclusion with ...
The statement or phenomenon that is being explained in an explanation. explanans The statement or set of statements that provide the explanation for the phenomenon or statement referred to by the explanandum. explanation The act of clarifying, elucidating, or making something understandable through detailing reasons, causes, or justifications.
If you've been seeing "/SRS" on your feeds lately, there's a good reason for it.
If the first two statements, the premises, are true, then the third statement, the conclusion, must also be true. However, if it is subsequently learned that Tweety is a penguin or has a broken wing, we can no longer conclude that Tweety can fly. In the context of deductive inference, we would have to conclude that the first premise was simply ...
For valid arguments, the logical structure of the premises and the conclusion follows a pattern called a rule of inference. [12] For example, modus ponens is a rule of inference according to which all arguments of the form "(1) p , (2) if p then q , (3) therefore q " are valid, independent of what the terms p and q stand for. [ 13 ]
The name "disjunctive syllogism" derives from its being a syllogism, a three-step argument, and the use of a logical disjunction (any "or" statement.) For example, "P or Q" is a disjunction, where P and Q are called the statement's disjuncts. The rule makes it possible to eliminate a disjunction from a logical proof. It is the rule that
A statement can be called valid, i.e. logical truth, in some systems of logic like in Modal logic if the statement is true in all interpretations. In Aristotelian logic statements are not valid per se. Validity refers to entire arguments. The same is true in propositional logic (statements can be true or false but not called valid or invalid).