answersLogoWhite

0

What else can I help you with?

Continue Learning about General Science

A t is a type of deductive reasoning that draws a conclusion from two specific observations?

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.


In reasoning the conclusion derived from the premise is likely to be valid but is not necessarily so?

Inductive


What is Reasoning from generalizations to specific is?

Reasoning from generalizations to specific, also known as deductive reasoning, involves taking a broad principle or general statement and applying it to a particular case or situation. This form of reasoning starts with a general premise and leads to a specific conclusion that follows logically from that premise. For example, if all mammals have lungs (generalization), one can conclude that a specific whale, being a mammal, also has lungs. This approach is commonly used in scientific reasoning, mathematics, and logical arguments.


Using rules of logic to reach a conclusion?

Using rules of logic involves applying principles such as deduction and induction to connect premises to conclusions. For instance, if we know that all humans are mortal (premise 1) and Socrates is a human (premise 2), we can logically conclude that Socrates is mortal. This logical reasoning helps to ensure that conclusions are valid and based on sound arguments. Ultimately, it allows for clear and structured thinking in problem-solving and decision-making.


What is wrong with circular reasoning?

Circular reasoning is flawed because it relies on its own conclusion as a premise, creating a logical loop that fails to provide valid support for the argument. This form of reasoning does not offer new evidence or insight, making it unpersuasive and uninformative. It essentially assumes what it seeks to prove, undermining the credibility of the argument. As a result, circular reasoning does not advance understanding or contribute to rational discourse.

Related Questions

What kind of reasoning results in a conclusion that is not logically connected to its premise?

Faulty Apex :P


Four steps of deductive reasoning?

The four steps to inductive reasoning are... 1.) start with a premise 2.) build on premise with if then statements 3.) make equation or something else to prove something right. 4.) conclusion "this is true by deductive reasoning"


A t is a type of deductive reasoning that draws a conclusion from two specific observations?

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.


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 type of argument starts from a more general idea to reach a more specific conclusion?

A deductive argument starts from a more general idea to reach a more specific conclusion. It involves moving from a premise that is universally accepted to a specific conclusion that logically follows from that premise.


What is An argument that starts from a general idea to reach a more specific conclusion?

A deductive argument starts from a general principle or premise and uses it to logically conclude a more specific statement. This type of argument moves from the general to the specific, showing how the premise leads to a certain conclusion through valid reasoning.


What is minor premise?

A premise has one term in common with a conclusion. A minor premise contains the minor term in the conclusion, which is the subject. It can be described as a subtle or deceptive argument or deductive reasoning.


If a premise and the conclusion are true the argument is true?

Not necessarily. An argument is not automatically true just because the premise and conclusion are true. The reasoning connecting the premise to the conclusion must also be valid for the argument to be considered true.


Do conclusions that are not logically supported invalidate the entire study?

Conclusions that are not logically supported do not necessarily invalidate the entire study, but they do call into question the credibility and reliability of the findings. Researchers should ensure that their conclusions are based on sound logical reasoning and evidence to maintain the validity of their study.


What is an illogical argument?

An illogical argument is one in which the premise does not logically lead to the conclusion. This can involve making invalid connections between the evidence and the conclusion, or using flawed reasoning that does not follow the rules of logic. It often leads to unsupported or unreasonable conclusions.


In reasoning the conclusion derived from the premise is likely to be valid but is not necessarily so?

Inductive


Is a suppressed premise valid?

A suppressed premise is not explicitly stated in an argument but is assumed to be understood by the audience. While it can be valid if it logically supports the conclusion, the overall validity of the argument depends on the strength and relevance of that implied premise. If the suppressed premise is questionable or false, it can undermine the argument's validity. Thus, clarity and transparency in presenting all premises are crucial for robust reasoning.