An argument that is weak is, by definition, uncogent....
A valid argument is certainly stronger than an invalid argument. but an argument can be valid and still be relatively weak. Validity and strength are not the same, although they are both good features for an argument to have.
"Its" indicates belonging, as in something belongs to "it":The paper has a stamp --> its stamp ("it" meaning the paper)The argument had a weak thesis --> its weak thesis ("it" meaning the argument)
Valid arguments must include facts and supporting documentation in order to strengthen the validity. If not, then the argument can be challenged.
"Scraping the bottom of the barrel," meaning to offer a pathetically weak example or argument, says it pretty concisely.
pulling one's leg (teasing or joking aroundget a leg up on (getting a head start)don't have a leg to stand on (a weak argument)
discuss briefly the similarities and differences between strong and weak arguments and cogent and uncogent argument support your discussion with your own examples
An uncogent argument in logic is one that fails to provide valid or sound reasoning to support its conclusion. This can be due to logical fallacies, false premises, or weak evidence. In essence, it is an argument that does not effectively convince or persuade based on logical principles.
A strong inductive argument can be considered uncogent if the premises are not relevant or if there is a problem with the reasoning or structure of the argument. Additionally, if the premises are not true or if there is a lack of sufficient evidence to support the conclusion, the strong inductive argument may be considered uncogent.
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.
Yes, a valid argument can still be weak if the premises provided are not strong or relevant enough to support the conclusion. Validity refers to the logical structure of an argument, while the strength of an argument refers to the quality and persuasiveness of the premises.
Valid arguments are not described as strong or weak. Validity refers to the logical structure of an argument - if the premises logically lead to the conclusion. An argument can be valid but still weak if the premises are not well-supported or sound.
A valid argument is certainly stronger than an invalid argument. but an argument can be valid and still be relatively weak. Validity and strength are not the same, although they are both good features for an argument to have.
A strong argument is one that is logically sound, supported by evidence and reasoning, and addresses counterarguments effectively. A weak argument lacks evidence, has logical fallacies, and relies on emotional appeals rather than facts.
"Its" indicates belonging, as in something belongs to "it":The paper has a stamp --> its stamp ("it" meaning the paper)The argument had a weak thesis --> its weak thesis ("it" meaning the argument)
one side tries to find the weak parts of the opposing sides argument
No, an argument cannot be void. An argument can be weak, flawed, or unconvincing, but it still retains its basic structure and content. A void argument would imply that there is no argument at all.
imagine it with a spanish accent and weak comebacks