Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises. The philosophical analysis of logical consequence involves the questions: In what sense does a conclusion follow from its premises? and What does it mean for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises ...
In the TE framework, the entailing and entailed texts are termed text (t) and hypothesis (h), respectively.Textual entailment is not the same as pure logical entailment – it has a more relaxed definition: "t entails h" (t ⇒ h) if, typically, a human reading t would infer that h is most likely true. [1]
Strawson entailment has played an important role in semantic theory since some natural language expressions have been argued to be sensitive to Strawson-entailment rather than pure entailment. For instance, the textbook theory of weak negative polarity items holds that they are licensed only in Strawson- downward entailing environments.
In natural language, an instance of the paradox of entailment arises: It is raining. And It is not raining. Therefore George Washington is made of rakes. This arises from the principle of explosion, a law of classical logic stating that inconsistent premises always make an argument valid; that is, inconsistent premises imply any conclusion at all.
Conclusion: It's cloudy. The logical form of this argument is known as modus ponens , [ 39 ] which is a classically valid form. [ 40 ] So, in classical logic, the argument is valid , although it may or may not be sound , depending on the meteorological facts in a given context.
Linguistic entailments are entailments which arise in natural language.If a sentence A entails a sentence B, sentence A cannot be true without B being true as well. [1] For instance, the English sentence "Pat is a fluffy cat" entails the sentence "Pat is a cat" since one cannot be a fluffy cat without being a cat.
Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal." This can be weakened by adding a premise: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Cows produce milk. Therefore Socrates is mortal." By the property of monotonicity, the argument remains valid with the additional premise, even though the premise is irrelevant to the conclusion.
In deductive reasoning, a sound argument is an argument that is valid and all of its premises are true (and as a consequence its conclusion is true as well). An argument is valid if, assuming its premises are true, the conclusion must be true. An example of a sound argument is the following well-known syllogism: (premises) All men are mortal.