Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a necessary consequence of its premises. 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:
An argument is sound and its conclusion logically follows (it is true) if and only if the argument is valid and its premises are true. An argument is valid if and only if it is the case that whenever the premises are all true, the conclusion must also be true. If there exists a logical interpretation where the premises are all true but the ...
An argument, more fully a premise–conclusion argument, is a two-part system composed of premises and conclusion. An argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is a consequence of its premises. Every premise set has infinitely many consequences each giving rise to a valid argument. Some consequences are obviously so, but most are not ...
Deductive reasoning offers the strongest support: the premises ensure the conclusion, meaning that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if all the premises are true. Such an argument is called a valid argument, for example: all men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal. For valid arguments, it is not important ...
An argument can be “valid” even if one or more of its premises are false. An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true. It is possible to have a deductive argument that is logically valid but is not sound. Fallacious arguments often take that form. The following is an example of an argument that is “valid”, but not ...
An argument is formally valid if and only if the denial of the conclusion is incompatible with accepting all the premises. In formal logic, the validity of an argument depends not on the actual truth or falsity of its premises and conclusion, but on whether the argument has a valid logical form. [citation needed] The validity of an argument is ...
A logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premise, making the argument circular. Bew See provability predicate. BHK-interpretation The Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov interpretation, a constructivist interpretation of intuitionistic logic, where the truth of a statement is equated with the existence of a proof for it. bias
For valid arguments, the logical structure of the premises and the conclusion follows a pattern called a rule of inference. [12] For example, modus ponens is a rule of inference according to which all arguments of the form "(1) p , (2) if p then q , (3) therefore q " are valid, independent of what the terms p and q stand for. [ 13 ]