0
If the conclusion of an argument is exactly as probable as its negation given the premises of the argument the the argument is weak?
Yes, if the conclusion of an argument is just as likely to be false as it is to be true based on the premises provided, then the argument is considered weak because it does not provide strong support for the conclusion. The premises should logically lead to the conclusion, rather than leaving it equally likely to be true or false.
What else can I help you with?
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 is a logical conclusion?
A logical conclusion is a judgment or result reached through reasoning and evidence that follows logically from the premises or information presented. It is the final step in the process of deductive or inductive reasoning where one can infer what is most likely or probable based on the information available.
What is an argument that starts from a specific idea to reach a genral conclusion?
An argument that starts from a specific idea to reach a general conclusion is known as inductive reasoning. In this type of reasoning, specific observations or data points are used to draw a broader conclusion that is considered probable, but not necessarily definitive. Inductive reasoning allows for the generalization of patterns or trends based on specific instances.
How is inductive reasoning used to support an argument?
Inductive reasoning involves making generalizations based on specific observations or evidence. In an argument, it is used to provide support by presenting a series of instances that lead to a probable conclusion. However, it is important to note that conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning are not guaranteed to be true, as they are based on probability rather than certainty.
What is the probable truth definition of the keyword?
The probable truth definition of a keyword is the most likely meaning or interpretation of the word based on context and evidence.
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 is the definition of inductive reasoning?
Inductive reasoning is " reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.". This is the reasoning behind most for scientific and mathematical studies.
What is a logical conclusion?
A logical conclusion is a judgment or result reached through reasoning and evidence that follows logically from the premises or information presented. It is the final step in the process of deductive or inductive reasoning where one can infer what is most likely or probable based on the information available.
What is an argument that starts from a specific idea to reach a genral conclusion?
An argument that starts from a specific idea to reach a general conclusion is known as inductive reasoning. In this type of reasoning, specific observations or data points are used to draw a broader conclusion that is considered probable, but not necessarily definitive. Inductive reasoning allows for the generalization of patterns or trends based on specific instances.
How do you create an inductive argument?
you start by creating premises that make the conclusion probable but not necessary (as is the case with deductive arguments). For example, Socrates was Greek Most Greeks ate fish Therefore, Socrates probably ate fish this is an inductive argument, because it is based on probability. the natural sciences frequently use this type of argument Answer First pick your subject and have ready certain facts which can be put forward for discussion. The facts may be argued for or against, but in the end all come to a general conclusion of the possibility that the facts contain enough evidence to argue the point, certainly enough to satisfy all concerned that the possibility that the evidence put for or against has merrit.
What prefix would you use for the word probable?
pro
How is inductive reasoning used to support an argument?
Inductive reasoning involves making generalizations based on specific observations or evidence. In an argument, it is used to provide support by presenting a series of instances that lead to a probable conclusion. However, it is important to note that conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning are not guaranteed to be true, as they are based on probability rather than certainty.
How many times can the police search your premises?
Short answer = as many time as they have a warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicions to do so. US law and it will vary from state to state.
What is required for law enforcement officers to obtain a search warrant?
Probable cause that the objects or contraband they are searching for will be found on the premises - submit a signed and sworn affidavit to a magistrate or judge and - the judges signature on the warrant.
What is an confirmation of dispatch?
When the ordered goods leave the company premises, the authority issues 'Confirmation of Dispatch' to the customer,stating the exact date,time,mode of dispatch and probable time it will take to reach customer's hands.
What makes a search warrant valid?
A warrant is VALIDATED by the signature of the approving judge or magistrate. An APPLICATION for a warrant must include enough information (who-what-when-where-how) and include "probable cause" that what is sworn to in the warrant is taking place within the premises named.
How is propaganda different from argument?
Propaganda is usually the telling of lies to prove one's assumptions."Logical fallacies" include many categories and refers to an incorrect use of logic.Propaganda is almost always full of logical fallacies.-----------------One of the definitions of Propoganda that I like best is from Professor Randal Marlin of Carleton University in Ottawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randal_Marlin):The organized attempt through communication to affect belief or action or inculcate attitudes in a large audience in ways that circumvent or suppress an individual's adequately informed, rational, reflective judgmentIn logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.However, it is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies as well as formal fallacies. - valid but unsound claims or bad nondeductive argumentation - .The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion (see fallacy fallacy). Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument (e.g., appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.Summary:As the first contributor noted Propaganda usually includes fallacies of some sort (erroneous or misleading presentation of information) that skew the facts towards the perspective of the presenter.
