Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A variety of basic concepts is used in the study and analysis of logical reasoning. Logical reasoning happens by inferring a conclusion from a set of premises. [3] Premises and conclusions are normally seen as propositions. A proposition is a statement that makes a claim about what is the case.
For example, if A. Plato was mortal, and B. Socrates was like Plato in other respects, then asserting that C. Socrates was mortal is an example of argument by analogy because the reasoning employed in it proceeds from a particular truth in a premise (Plato was mortal) to a similar particular truth in the conclusion, namely that Socrates was mortal.
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 symbol or word used in logic to connect propositions or sentences, forming more complex expressions that convey relationships such as conjunction, disjunction, and negation. logical consequence A relationship between statements where the truth of one or more premises necessitates the truth of a conclusion, based on the logical structure of ...
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 ...
The premises also have one term in common with each other, which is known as the middle term; in this example, humans. Both of the premises are universal, as is the conclusion. Major premise: All mortals die. Minor premise: All men are mortals. Conclusion/Consequent: All men die.
That is, the word "valid" does not refer to the truth of the premises or the conclusion, but rather to the form of the inference. An inference can be valid even if the parts are false, and can be invalid even if some parts are true. But a valid form with true premises will always have a true conclusion.
The second premise is an assertion that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is the case. From these two premises it can be logically concluded that Q, the consequent of the conditional claim, must be the case as well. An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens: If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work. Today is Tuesday.