0
Not always. They need to be in a flow and all connect, then, at the end, give a breif description of what you have just written. For e.g., A debate about 'Dragons, are they real or not?'
Bad Depate
Dragons are not real! There can't be a big lizard with wings that can fly! It's Impossible for them to breathe fire! They just can't be real!
The bad points with this are there is not title, so you don't know what side of the argument they are on.
It doesn't flow. It's in one big clump, and needs to be spread out and given more detail.
Now, here's an e.g. of a good argument.
Dragons, Are They Real or Not?
I believe the existence of dragons is true, due to some un-explainable thoughts that have been proven that the existence of dragons is real. These are my reasons.
My frist reason is, how can a creature, passed down in the history of time, a creature that is known to every single human culpture, even the ones whom live in ice-bound lands, how can it be that every one of them, has a story to tell about the one creature, all describing the detail of a dragon?
A further reason is that how can a T-Rex, the kings of dinosaurs, the crown of it's skull is scared by Tallen marks, the size of a T-Rex's Tallens, when the only flying dinosaurs are the Pterradactels, when their claws are half the size or so?
My last reason is, how did we discover the fire? Surely, we would have had to seen it from somewhere? And the only creature to have ever been known to breathe fire, or at least make it, is the dragon?
So, althogh others may still argue agents it, but I believe that I have shown that the existence of dragons is real.
All the above written by Wiggleytuff 84 (Danielle)
What else can I help you with?
Are all valid arguments cogent arguments?
No, not all valid arguments are cogent. A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, while a cogent argument is a valid argument with true premises. In other words, cogent arguments are a subset of valid arguments.
What are the distinguished features of cogent and uncogent arguments?
Both are inductive arguments, cogent is strong with all true premises, uncogent is either weak, or strong but with one or more false premises or both.
All valid arguments are sound arguments?
No, but all sound arguments are valid arguments. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the premises. A sound argument is a valid argument where the premises are accepted as true.
Do all valid arguments have true conclusions?
No, valid arguments can have false conclusions. Validity refers to the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion, ensuring that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. However, the validity of an argument does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, as the premises themselves could be false.
Can you provide some examples of false premises in arguments?
False premises in arguments are statements that are not true or accurate, but are used as the basis for an argument. Examples include: "All politicians are corrupt," "If you don't support this policy, you must be unpatriotic," and "If you're not with us, you're against us." These false premises can lead to flawed reasoning and invalid conclusions.
What is argument validity?
Validity is an evaluation criteria for a deductive argument. A deductive argument is valid if it is impossible for it to have all true premises and a false conclusion.eg. All cats are green. All green things are wizards. Therefore, all cats are wizards.
What is the conclusion that can be drawn if all the premises of an argument are true?
If all the premises of an argument are true, then the conclusion drawn from those premises is likely to be valid and logically sound.
Can you provide an example of an ampliative argument and explain how it differs from a deductive argument?
An example of an ampliative argument is: "All observed swans are white, so all swans are white." This argument makes a generalization based on limited evidence. The key difference between ampliative and deductive arguments is that deductive arguments aim to guarantee the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true, while ampliative arguments only provide probable support for the conclusion based on the premises.
What word is used to classify an argument if it is valid and all of its premises are true?
The word used to classify an argument if it is valid and all of its premises are true is "sound." A sound argument is when the logical structure of the argument is valid and all the premises are true, leading to a logically sound conclusion.
Give 5 examples of sentences with word 'cogent'?
* Cogent is a word with six letters * Cogent is included in all of these sentences, including this one * My mother is not called Cogent * Cogent is not a political party in the Cook Islands * There is not a mobile phone network based in the United Kingdom called Cogent * ''Cogent's goal is simple: To unleash the potential of the Internet by making vast quantities of bandwidth an affordable reality for your business''---- She put forward several cogent arguments in favour of the merger.(Cogent means persuasive or convincing, to be honest I've only ever seen it used to describe arguments or reasons for doing something.) ---- # I am voting 'Not Guilty', as I do not believe the prosecution presented cogent evidence to make its case. # Upon reviewing your documents, I believe a more cogent analysis of the problem is needed before we make the presentation to the clients. # Frederick Douglass was a cogent orator, as evidenced by concise but powerful statements like: "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." # His cogent argument helped sway the votes in the State Legislature in favor of passing the new law. # Susan B. Anthony showed herself to be a controversial yet cogent activist when she advocated for women to join the workforce by entering the printing trades during a union strike (by the male workers.)allisa expressed a very cogent argument
What are the parts of a deductive argument?
A deductive argument consists of a premise (a statement assumed to be true) and a conclusion (a statement inferred from the premises). The premise provides evidence or reasons to support the conclusion, which must necessarily follow from the premises if they are true. Deductive arguments aim to demonstrate the logical necessity of the conclusion based on the premises provided.
How does the presence of a false conclusion in a strong argument indicate that not all of its premises can be true?
The presence of a false conclusion in a strong argument suggests that at least one of its premises must be false, as a strong argument should lead to a true conclusion based on true premises.
