Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
a capite ad calcem: from head to heel: i.e., "from top to bottom", "all the way through", or "from head to toe". See also a pedibus usque ad caput. a contrario: from the opposite: i.e., "on the contrary" or "au contraire". Thus, an argumentum a contrario ("argument from the contrary") is an argument or proof by contrast or direct opposite. a ...
Argumentum a fortiori (literally "argument from the stronger [reason]") (UK: / ˈ ɑː f ɔːr t i ˈ oʊ r i /, [1] US: / ˈ eɪ f ɔːr ʃ i ˈ ɔːr aɪ /) is a form of argumentation that draws upon existing confidence in a proposition to argue in favor of a second proposition that is held to be implicit in, and even more certain than, the first.
This is the argument "a minori ad majus" or "a majori ad minus". In the Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules this rule is divided into two (Nos. 5 and 6), since a distinction is made between a course of reasoning carried to its logical conclusion in the Holy Scriptures themselves ("kal va-chomer meforash") and one merely suggested there ("kal va ...
a capite ad calcem: from head to heel: i.e., "from top to bottom", "all the way through", or "from head to toe". See also a pedibus usque ad caput. a contrario: from the opposite: i.e., "on the contrary" or "au contraire". Thus, an argumentum a contrario ("argument from the contrary") is an argument or proof by contrast or direct opposite. a ...
Ad hominem – rebutting an argument by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making it rather than the substance of the argument itself. Adianoeta – a phrase carrying two meanings: an obvious meaning and a second, more subtle and ingenious one (more commonly known as double entendre).
An argument in literature is a brief summary, often in prose, of a poem or section of a poem or other work. It is often appended to the beginning of each chapter, book, or canto . They were common during the Renaissance as a way to orient a reader within a large work.
An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam, the sob story, or the Galileo argument) [1] [2] is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting one's opponent's feelings of pity or guilt.
Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true. In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it. This makes it an example of circular reasoning. [1] [2]