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 ...
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). An argumentation scheme's definition is not itself an argument, but represents the structure of an argument of a certain type.
In the first example argument map, the objector can't find anything contentious in the stated premises of the argument, but still disagrees with the conclusion; the objection is therefore placed beside the main premise and, in this case, exactly corresponds to an unstated or 'hidden' co-premise. This is demonstrated by the second example ...
In this form, you start with the same first premise as with modus ponens. However, the second part of the premise is denied, leading to the conclusion that the first part of the premise should be denied as well. It is shown below in logical form. If A, then B Not B Therefore not A. [3] When modus tollens is used with actual content, it looks ...
A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. It would be self-contradictory to assert the premises and deny the conclusion because the negation of the conclusion is contradictory to the truth of the premises.
An argument where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, intended to provide conclusive proof of the conclusion. deductive consequence See syntactic consequence. [81] deductive validity 1. The property of a deductive argument where, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. [82] 2.
Every argument's conclusion is a premise of other arguments. The word constituent may be used for either a premise or conclusion. In the context of this article and in most classical contexts, all candidates for consideration as argument constituents fall under the category of truth-bearer : propositions, statements, sentences, judgments, etc.
Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises [105] [106] in violation of fact-value distinction. Naturalistic fallacy (sometimes confused with appeal to nature) is the inverse of moralistic fallacy. Is–ought fallacy [107] – deduce a conclusion about what ought to be, on the basis of what is.