Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For example, in UK, people speak of "Crown property" meaning property belonging to the State. Similarly: "The White House had no comment to make." Minor premise – statement in an argument. Moral reasoning – reasoning employed in rhetoric that determines a conclusion based on evidence; used in issues of ethics, religion, economics, and politics.
Begging the question (petitio principii) – using the conclusion of the argument in support of itself in a premise (e.g.: saying that smoking cigarettes is deadly because cigarettes can kill you; something that kills is deadly). [47] [48]
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] Some examples are: "People have known for thousands of years that the earth is round. Therefore, the earth is round." "Drugs are illegal so they must be bad for you.
Though the above paragraph contains a common conclusion indicator word ("thus"), it nevertheless is merely illustrating a fact of taxonomy. However, this could be made into an argument. Taxonomists use Latin words to classify various animals so that scientists who speak different languages can communicate discoveries more easily.
Exempli gratiā is usually abbreviated "e. g." or "e.g." (less commonly, ex. gr.).The abbreviation "e.g." is often interpreted (Anglicised) as 'example given'. The plural exemplōrum gratiā to refer to multiple examples (separated by commas) is now not in frequent use; when used, it may be seen abbreviated as "ee.g." or even "ee.gg.", corresponding to the practice of doubling plurals in Latin ...
An example of jumping to conclusions is when one makes assumptions about what someone else is going to say, often by cutting them off with the words "I know what you're going to say". Saying things like "wow, geez, and what a shame" can make one come across as more interested in looking supportive than what the other person is saying. Therefore ...
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 were true. In other words, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Therefore, the argument is “valid”, but not “sound”.
Consider the modal account in terms of the argument given as an example above: All frogs are green. Kermit is a frog. Therefore, Kermit is green. The conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises because we can not imagine a possible world where (a) all frogs are green; (b) Kermit is a frog; and (c) Kermit is not green.