0
If an argument is sound does that mean the conclusion follows logically from the premises?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
yes, most likely if the dog siad djsoc sucn a mean thing djdeee oqqqo then that would be well do creek qoqd wwkee days cow, money cool people and fods anrec djerqqw wyheb
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is an argument valid or invalid?
An argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. It is invalid if the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
How can you tell if an argument is valid?
An argument is valid if the conclusion follows logically from the premises. In a valid argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. This can be determined by evaluating the logical structure of the argument.
What makes a valid deductive argument?
A valid deductive argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises. In other words, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. The form of the argument must be such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
Can a valid deductive argument have a false conclusion?
No, a valid deductive argument cannot have a false conclusion. If the argument is valid, it means that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. If the conclusion is false, it means that the argument is not valid.
A deductive argument with two premises is a?
A deductive argument with two premises is a syllogism in logic. It consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion that follows logically from the premises.
What is a deductive argument?
A deductive argument is a logical reasoning process where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. It is a form of reasoning that aims to provide logically conclusive evidence for the conclusion.
What is the difference between sound and unsound argument?
A sound argument is a logical argument that is both valid (the conclusion logically follows from the premises) and has true premises. It is considered strong and reliable. On the other hand, an unsound argument lacks either a valid structure or true premises, making it weak and unreliable. It fails to provide a logical or factual basis for its conclusion.
All valid arguments are sound arguments?
This statement is not correct. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises, regardless of whether the premises are true or not. A sound argument, on the other hand, is a valid argument with true premises. So, while all sound arguments are valid, not all valid arguments are sound.
What sHow is how a conclusion logically follows from other statements?
A proof shows how a conclusion follows other statements
What are the parts of a inductive argument?
An inductive argument is one in which the conclusion follows probably from the premises. For example: 1. Felix is a cat. 2. Most cats like to play with mice 3. Felix (probably) likes to play with mice Remember, in inductive arguments, its possible that the conclusion is false even if the premises are true.
What is a inductive logic?
Inductive logic, or inductive reasoning is any form of argument where the premises mean that the conclusion is probably correct . for example: "that ring cost me only 3 dollars. Rings that are made of gold almost always cost more than 3 dollars. Therefore that ring is not made of gold" That argument was inductive because while it is almost certainly right, it is theoretically possible that the ring is actually made of gold but was just sold for 3 dollars for some reason. Inductive logic is diffrent from deductive logic because in deductive logic if the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows the premises then there is no possible way that the conclusion could be false.
What is the difference between valid and sound argument?
A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, regardless of whether the premises are true. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. In other words, a sound argument is both valid and has true premises.
What is the difference between valid and sound...?
A valid argument is an argument whose conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises. It is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. An example of a valid argument is:1. If Thales was right, then everything is made of water.2. It's not the case that everything was made of water.3. So, Thales wasn't right.This argument has the form: If P then Q, ~Q, therefore ~P. The conclusion is derived using Modus Tollens. All of the premises are true, and so is the conclusion.However, the validity of an argument does not entail the truth of its conclusion. Consider another example of a valid argument:1. If Socrates was a Philosopher, then Socrates was a happy alligator.2. Socrates was a Philosopher.3. So, Socrates was a happy alligator.This argument is valid: it is of the form If P then Q, P, therefore Q. The conclusion is derived using Modus Ponens (a rule for logical inference which preserves truth).However, the conclusion is false. Because it is valid, one of the premises must also be false: and, we can see, premise 1 is the culprit. If we replace it with a better premise, such as "If Socrates was a Philosopher, then Socrates existed", we derive a different and true conclusion (that Socrates existed).A sound argument is an argument with two features: (i) it is valid, and (ii) its premises are all true.It is not clear whether we ought to include other features, like non-circularity, in the necessary conditions for soundness; convention has yet to determine it.In my opinion, a valid argument is any argument that opens a dialogue (without anger of course) where the opposing side can see and understand your side and may actually cause doubt as to whether they were right at all.Opposing argument:Arguments begin with a premise or premises and end with a conclusion. Take the argument above, here we have a premise that states a valid argument is one that opens a dialog, qualifying that opening as non emotional, and concludes that by opening with a non emotional argument of non specified nature the opposing side will understand the correctness of this argument and thereby have doubt about its own argument. Of course, since the premise is far too vague to even lead to a conclusion, there is no doubt by the opposition that another definition is required to effectively explain what a valid argument is.In order to have a valid argument, the truth of the conclusion must be a logical consequence of the premise. Take this argument, for example, that has declared the original argument not valid as a valid argument because the truth of the conclusion quite clearly is not a logical consequence of its premise. That would be the premise. Now this argument will lead to a logical conclusion proving that the above argument was not valid. The above argument may be a deductive argument that has, in that contributors opinion, deduced that the conclusion of that argument is a logical consequence of the premise. Or it may be a inductive argument that claims the conclusion is supported by the premises and if a deductive argument the above argument may or may not be valid or may or may not be sound. In this case, the above argument is neither valid nor sound.The only kind of argument that can logically be called a valid argument is one where the the truth of the conclusion is actually a logical consequence of the premise or premises and its corresponding conditional is necessarily true. An argument then, can only be valid if the negation of the corresponding conditional is a contradiction. For example:It is either good or badIt is not goodTherefore it is bad.In its application we can test if an argument is valid or not by translating the premise and conclusion into sentential or predicate logic sentences. Then constructing from these the negation from the corresponding conditional and finally see if from this a contradiction can be obtained. Or a truth table if feasible can be used to test if the premises come out false in every row. This truth table usually relies upon Boolean functions in terms of true or false. Then alternately construct a truth tree to test if all the branches are closed. If successful this proves the validity of the original argument.In attempting to test the original argument we find that argument is lacking in sufficient premises to test it. We could break the premises down to this:In his opinion any argument is a valid argumentAny argument that opens a dialog with out angerAn argument that allows the opposing side to see his argumentThe opposing argument then doubts their own reasoning.Broken down this way, the premises do not lead to a logical conclusion. If any argument is a valid argument then the opposing argument would be valid as well. Let's try breaking it down this way.Any argument is a valid argument that opens a dialogWithout anger, where the opposing side can see that argumentThus, or possibly causing doubt in the opposing arguments reasoning.Of course, if the original premise is true then there is no point in arguing as any opposition by definition is non valid since it did not open the dialog. However, the conclusion is a logical consequence of the original premise. It is the second premise that makes no sense if the original premise is true, because no opening argument need be made in order for an opposing argument to see that it is an opening argument and by definition the only valid argument made. Thus, the premise must original premise must be false, but the second premise is clearly true leaving the conclusion in a state of illogic.The original argument really can not be broken down by any truth table or truth tree. It is merely an opinion offered for lack of a better explanation. In any argument, if the one making the argument assumes the game is to prove the other person wrong, then the game is lost. Arguments should only be used to derive a truth or truths. When this is understood, those making arguments are never wrong. The premise itself may be either true or false but never wrong. May be valid or not, sound or not sound but never wrong. Since the original argument was offered as merely an opinion it is of course, not wrong. It his however, not a valid argument.
Is a paradox an absurd conclusion that follows from an argument that appears to be good?
A paradox is a statement or situation that leads to a contradiction or illogical conclusion. It can arise from seemingly sound reasoning but results in an incongruity that challenges common sense or logic.
What features of an argument make it inductive reasoning?
One AnswerInductive reasoning is a form of logical reasoning that begins with a particular argument and arrives at a universal logical conclusion. An example is when you first observe falling objects, and as a result, formulate a general operational law of gravity.A critical factor for identifying an argument based on inductive reasoning is the nature relationships among the premises underlying the propositions in an argument. Logical reasoning exists in an argument only when a premise or premises flow with logical necessity into the resulting conclusion. Hence, there is no sequence.The following is an example of an Inductive Argument:Premise 1. You know that a woman named Daffodil lives somewhere your building.Premise 2: Daffodil has a shrill voice.Premise 3. You hear a woman in the apartment next door yelling with a yelling with a shrill voice.Conclusion: It is likely that the woman fighting in the apartment is Daffodil.Note how the detailed premises logically flow together into the conclusion. This is the hallmark of inductive reasoning.Another AnswerI have heard of a mathematical proof that quantifies inductive reasoning through patterns in numbers, its called Occums Razor.Another AnswerThe information contained in the premises of an argument is supposed to provide evidence for its conclusion. In a good (valid) argument, they do; the conclusion follows logically from the premises. In a bad (invalid) argument, they do not.When the evidence provided by the premises is conclusive, or, minimally, supposed to be conclusive, the argument is a deductive one; otherwise, it is inductive.To use the metaphor of containment, in a valid deductive argument the information contained in its conclusion is always equal to or less than the information provided by its premises. For example, where 'p' stands for any proposition, the argument: "p, hence p" is valid (even though it's trivial). The information in the conclusion is obviously the same as the information in the premise. (In an actual case, this valid argument would be "sound" if the premise were true, and it would be valid but "unsound" if the premise were false.)By way of contrast, in an inductive argument, the information in the premises is always weaker than the information in the conclusion.For example, suppose that all the senators from a certain state have been male. Someone might argue that, since the first senator was male and since the second senator was male and since the third senator was male and so on, then the next senator will also be male. In this case, the information contained in the conclusion is not already contained in its premises (because its premises say nothing about the next senator). Is this, then, a successful argument?Obviously, it is not in the sense that there is a logical gap between the information contained in the premises and the information contained in the conclusion. On the other hand, some might argue that the premises provide some, but not conclusive, evidence of the truth of the conclusion. It might, in other words, be more likely that the next senator would be male, but that is not for certain.Therefore, in a deductive argument, the relevant evidence is, if true and the argument is valid, conclusive.However, in an inductive argument, the evidence provided by all the premises is never conclusive.CautionPeople often confuse inductive and deductive arguments. inductive arguments often reason from a set of particulars to a generality; deductive arguments often reason from a generality to a set of particulars. For example, if I see three robins (the bird, not Batman's sidekick) and they all have red breasts, then I can use inductive reasoning to say that all robins have red breasts (I start with what I've seen and make a general rule about it). Once I've made the rule that all robins have red breasts, then I can use deductive reasoning to say that the next robin I see will have a red breast (I start with a general rule and make a statement about a particular thing I will see).However, there are deductive arguments that move from general premises to general conclusions. Eg., All dogs are canines. All canines are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are mammals. And inductive arguments that move from particulars to particulars. Eg., These shoes are like the ones I bought last year at Zmart. The ones I bought last year are still wearable so these shoes are likely to be wearable too.
Difference between deductive and inductive research with example?
Inductive research starts off with specific observations and move toward general ideas or theory to capture what they show. (Qualitative) Deductive Research starts with a general idea or theory and then moves to test it by looking at specific observations. (Quantitative)
For the picture sequence above find the picture that follows logically from one of the four below?
For the picture sequence above, find the picture that follows logically from one of the four below
