yes
in a different problem, otherwise it's a tautology
This depends on the specific premises and conclusion being evaluated. In general, premises that provide strong and relevant evidence in support of the conclusion can be considered sufficient. However, if there are logical gaps or missing information in the premises that weaken the connection to the conclusion, then the premises may not be sufficient. Critical analysis is necessary to determine whether the premises adequately support the conclusion.
Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises provided. It involves starting with general statements or principles and applying them to specific cases to derive a conclusion. If the premises are true and the reasoning is valid, the conclusion must also be true. This method is often used in mathematics and formal logic.
A deductively valid argument is if the premises are true then the conclusion is certainly true, not possibly true. The definition does not say that the conclusion is true.
A syllogism is a type of deductive reasoning that draws a conclusion from two specific premises or observations. It typically consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion that logically follows from the two premises. For example, if all humans are mortal (major premise) and Socrates is a human (minor premise), then it concludes that Socrates is mortal. This method of reasoning helps to clarify relationships between different statements and can be used to derive new knowledge from established facts.
To determine whether the conclusion is valid, you could ask, "What evidence supports the premises leading to this conclusion?" This question encourages an examination of the logical connections and the reliability of the data or assumptions that underpin the conclusion. Additionally, asking, "Are there any counterexamples or alternative explanations that challenge this conclusion?" can help assess its robustness.
conclusions that are used as a premises in a continuing chain of reasoning
Deductive reasoning proceeds from known true premises to a logically necessary true conclusion. This type of reasoning guarantees the truth of the conclusion if the premises 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.
Logical strength refers to the degree to which the premises of an argument support its conclusion. An argument is considered logically strong if, assuming the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true as well. This concept is often used in the context of inductive reasoning, where the strength of the argument is assessed based on the probability that the conclusion follows from the premises. In contrast, deductive arguments are evaluated based on validity, where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises if they are true.
These types of words are called conclusion indicators. They signal to the listener or reader that the argument is reaching a conclusion based on the presented premises. Examples of conclusion indicators include "thus," "therefore," and "so".
To add a premises and conclusion to an incomplete argument, first identify the main point being made. Then, find additional supporting reasons or evidence that lead to that main point to form the premises. Finally, state a clear conclusion that follows logically from the premises provided. Make sure the premises adequately support the conclusion for a strong and coherent argument.
A syllogism includes two premises and a conclusion. The premises take the form of statement about classes of things and the conclusion is a similar statement which is necessarily implied by the premises.
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.
An argument is a set of statements where some statements, called premises, are offered as reasons to support another statement, known as the conclusion. The premises provide evidence or justification for accepting the conclusion as true or valid. Arguments can be either deductive, where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, or inductive, where the conclusion is likely based on the premises. Overall, an effective argument must have clear premises and a logically sound conclusion.
This depends on the specific premises and conclusion being evaluated. In general, premises that provide strong and relevant evidence in support of the conclusion can be considered sufficient. However, if there are logical gaps or missing information in the premises that weaken the connection to the conclusion, then the premises may not be sufficient. Critical analysis is necessary to determine whether the premises adequately support the conclusion.
True. - Valid arguments are deductive. - Arguments are valid if the premises lead to the conclusion without committing a fallacy. - If an argument is valid, that means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. - This means that a valid argument with a false premise can lead to a false conclusion. This is called a valid, unsound argument. - A valid, sound argument would be when, if the premises are true the conclusion must be true and the premises are true.
A deductive argument is and argument that the premises are claimed to give sufficient support for the conclusion to follow. The premises are repeated in the conclusion. Often the conclusion does not have any new information. eg The moon is circular when it is full the moon is circular therefore the moon is full.