Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An argument is correct or incorrect depending on whether the premises offer support for the conclusion. This is often understood in terms of probability: if the premises of a correct argument are true, it raises the probability that its conclusion is also true. Forms of logical reasoning can be distinguished based on how the premises support ...
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 ...
If yes, the argument is strong. If no, it is weak. A strong argument is said to be cogent if it has all true premises. Otherwise, the argument is uncogent. The military budget argument example is a strong, cogent argument. Non-deductive logic is reasoning using arguments in which the premises support the conclusion but do not entail it.
The following is an example of an argument that is “valid”, but not “sound”: Everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback. John eats carrots. Therefore, John is a quarterback. The example's first premise is false – there are people who eat carrots who are not quarterbacks – but the conclusion would necessarily be true, if the premises ...
Logic studies arguments, which consist of a set of premises that leads to a conclusion. An example is the argument from the premises "it's Sunday" and "if it's Sunday then I don't have to work" leading to the conclusion "I don't have to work". [1] Premises and conclusions express propositions or claims that can be true or false. An important ...
A logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premise, making the argument circular. Bew See provability predicate. BHK-interpretation The Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov interpretation, a constructivist interpretation of intuitionistic logic, where the truth of a statement is equated with the existence of a proof for it. bias
Informal fallacies – arguments that are logically unsound for lack of well-grounded premises. [14] Argument from incredulity – when someone can't imagine something to be true, and therefore deems it false, or conversely, holds that it must be true because they can't see how it could be false. [15]
In other schemes, as in the example of the versions of argument from expert opinion in Groarke, Tindale & Little (2013), only good arguments fit the scheme because the criteria for goodness are included as premises, [32] so if any one of the premises is false, the conclusion should not be accepted.