Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
For example, inferring the conclusion "no cats are frogs" from the premises "all frogs are amphibians" and "no cats are amphibians" is a sound argument. But even arguments with false premises can be deductively valid, like inferring that "no cats are frogs" from the premises "all frogs are mammals" and "no cats are mammals".
Argumentation schemes are stereotypical patterns of inference, combining semantic-ontological relations with types of reasoning and logical axioms and representing the abstract structure of the most common types of natural arguments. [13] A typical example is the argument from expert opinion, shown below, which has two premises and a conclusion ...
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]
Life is full of logical arguments. Logical arguments are simple chains of statements people make to explain something they believe or notice about themselves, other people or the world at large.
Example of an early argument map, from Richard Whately's Elements of Logic (1852 edition). Argumentation theory is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning.
An example of this is the use of the rules of inference found within symbolic logic. Aristotle held that any logical argument could be reduced to two premises and a conclusion. [2] Premises are sometimes left unstated, in which case, they are called missing premises, for example: Socrates is mortal because all men are mortal.
Denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy based on drawing an untrue conclusion from an if–then argument. If X is true, then Y must also be true. More: RI Senate approves 'safe-storage' gun bill.
Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true. In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it. This makes it an example of circular reasoning. [1] [2]