Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Intermediate conclusions or sub-conclusions, where a claim is supported by another claim that is used in turn to support some further claim, i.e. the final conclusion or another intermediate conclusion: In the following diagram, statement 4 is an intermediate conclusion in that it is a conclusion in relation to statement 5 but is a premise in ...
Examples also constitute valid, if inelegant, proof, when it has also been demonstrated that the examples treated cover all possible cases.. In mathematics, proof by example can also be used to refer to attempts to illustrate a claim by proving cases of the claim, with the understanding that these cases contain key ideas which can be generalized into a full-fledged proof.
A rule of inference is a scheme of drawing conclusions that depends only on the logical form of the premises and the conclusion but not on their specific content. [39] [40] The most-discussed rule of inference is the modus ponens. It has the following form: p; if p then q; therefore q. This scheme is deductively valid no matter what p and q ...
Following the usual convention in argumentation theory, arguments are given as a list of premises followed by a single conclusion.The premises are the grounds given by the speaker or writer for the hearer or reader to accept the conclusion as true or as provisionally true (regarded as true for now).
John Locke (1632–1704), the likely originator of the term.. Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance, [a] is an informal fallacy where something is claimed to be true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary.
We can see also that, with the same premise, another conclusions are valid: columns 12, 14 and 15 are T. The column-8 operator (AND), shows Simplification rule: when p∧q=T (first line of the table), we see that p=T. With this premise, we also conclude that q=T, p∨q=T, etc. as shown by columns 9–15.
Establishing the "burden of proof" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance. For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance.
For example, the rule of inference called modus ponens takes two premises, one in the form "If p then q" and another in the form "p", and returns the conclusion "q". The rule is valid with respect to the semantics of classical logic (as well as the semantics of many other non-classical logics ), in the sense that if the premises are true (under ...