Ad
related to: what is a valid argument proof of employment policy
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An argument that is not valid is said to be "invalid". An example of a valid (and sound) argument is given by the following well-known syllogism: All men are mortal. (True) Socrates is a man. (True) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (True) What makes this a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion.
Usually, the employer has the burden of proof in discharge cases or if the employee is in the wrong. In the workplace, just cause is a burden of proof or standard that an employer must meet to justify discipline or discharge. Just cause usually refers to a violation of a company policy or rule.
In propositional logic, disjunction elimination [1] [2] (sometimes named proof by cases, case analysis, or or elimination) is the valid argument form and rule of inference that allows one to eliminate a disjunctive statement from a logical proof.
The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a necessary truth (true in all possible worlds) and so the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, or follows of logical necessity. The conclusion of a valid argument is not necessarily true, it depends on whether the premises are true.
In employment law, a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) (US), bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) (Canada), or genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) (UK) is a quality or an attribute that employers are allowed to consider when making decisions on the hiring and retention of employees—a quality that when considered in other contexts would constitute discrimination in ...
Deductively valid arguments can be known to be so without recourse to experience, so they must be knowable a priori. [1] However, formality alone does not guarantee that logical consequence is not influenced by empirical knowledge. So the a priori property of logical consequence is considered to be independent of formality. [1]
Absorption is a valid argument form and rule of inference of propositional logic. [1] [2] The rule states that if implies , then implies and .The rule makes it possible to introduce conjunctions to proofs.
On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. Seven members of the Court (1) agreed that disparate impact analysis may be applied to allegedly discriminatory subjective or discretionary employment practices, and (2) agreed regarding certain aspects of the evidentiary standards applicable in such case