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 ...
The conclusion of a valid argument is not necessarily true, it depends on whether the premises are true. If the conclusion, itself, is a necessary truth, it is without regard to the premises. Some examples: All Greeks are human and all humans are mortal; therefore, all Greeks are mortal.
Argumentation theory is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning. With historical origins in logic , dialectic , and rhetoric , argumentation theory includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue , conversation , and persuasion .
A rule of inference is a scheme of drawing conclusions that depends only on the logical form of the premises and the conclusion but not on their specific content. [39] [40] The most-discussed rule of inference is the modus ponens. It has the following form: p; if p then q; therefore q. This scheme is deductively valid no matter what p and q ...
It examines how conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. Informal logic examines arguments expressed in natural language whereas formal logic uses formal language.
Reason is the capacity of consciously applying logic by drawing valid conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth. [1] It is associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, religion, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a distinguishing ability possessed by humans.
Identify which statements are premises, sub-conclusions, and the main conclusion. Provide missing, implied conclusions and implied premises. (This is optional depending on the purpose of the argument map.) Put the statements into boxes and draw a line between any boxes that are linked. Indicate support from premise(s) to (sub)conclusion with ...
If there exists a logical interpretation where the premises are all true but the conclusion is false, the argument is invalid. Key to evaluating the quality of an argument is determining if it is valid and sound. That is, whether its premises are true and whether their truth necessarily results in a true conclusion.