enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Affirming a disjunct - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct

    This inference is unsound because all cats, by definition, are mammals. A second example provides a first proposition that appears realistic and shows how an obviously flawed conclusion still arises under this fallacy. [3] To be on the cover of Vogue Magazine, one must be a celebrity or very beautiful. This month's cover was a celebrity.

  3. Mirror image rule - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_image_rule

    If a person were to accept an offer, but make a modification, then they are actually rejecting the offer presented to them and are proposing a counter-offer: Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353. That modifying party is then the one making a new offer, and the original offeror is now the one who has to accept.

  4. Disjunct (linguistics) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunct_(linguistics)

    In linguistics, a disjunct is a type of adverbial adjunct that expresses information that is not considered essential to the sentence it appears in, but which is considered to be the speaker's or writer's attitude towards, or descriptive statement of, the propositional content of the sentence, "expressing, for example, the speaker's degree of truthfulness or his manner of speaking."

  5. Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

    There are many places to live in California other than San Diego. On the other hand, one can affirm with certainty that "if someone does not live in California" (non-Q), then "this person does not live in San Diego" (non-P). This is the contrapositive of the first statement, and it must be true if and only if the original statement is true.

  6. Contra proferentem - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem

    Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"), [1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.

  7. One partner wants sex. The other doesn't. What to do about ...

    www.aol.com/lifestyle/one-partner-wants-sex...

    "With this type of desire, one doesn’t wait to be horny to have sex, but has sex to get horny," she says, which means that "the desire follows the arousal, versus the reverse.”

  8. Package-deal fallacy - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package-deal_fallacy

    When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man’s self-interest—which he must selflessly renounce.

  9. Meeting of the minds - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds

    Suppose a contract is executed in due form and in writing to deliver a lecture, mentioning no time. One of the parties thinks that the promise will be construed to mean at once, within a week. The other thinks that it means when he is ready. The court says that it means within a reasonable time.