The meaning of valid is justifiable and once being relevant and meaningful. Accurate means something is free and true without error.
A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, while an invalid argument is one where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
Valid means that the argument leads to a true conclusion, given that its premises are true, but if an argument is valid that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is correct, as its premises may be wrong. A sound argument, on the other hand, in addition to being valid all of its premises are true and hence its conclusion is also true.
Being able to differentiate between the ostensible truth and the real truth requires critical thinking skills and a willingness to question information. It involves looking beyond surface appearances and considering multiple perspectives to arrive at a more accurate understanding of a situation or concept. It is essential for making informed decisions and forming valid opinions.
Some questions about knowledge include: How do we acquire knowledge? What is the difference between knowledge and belief? How do we determine if knowledge is reliable or accurate?
Explanatory modeling focuses on understanding the relationships between variables, while predictive modeling aims to make accurate predictions based on data patterns.
a valid trust is true and an enforcebale trust can be enforced
A valid deductive argument will have a valid premise and conclusion and a fallacy may be true, it all matters on how you came to the conclusion.
The difference between genuine and original is very simple. Genuine is something that is real while original is the first of something.
Facts cannot be valid. They can only be true or false. Arguments, on the other hand, can be valid. A valid argument in one which must have a true conclusion provided that the premises are true (no guarantee of that though).
There is no difference. Neither will work because neither is valid in C.
A faulty generalization is a statement that's not true while a valid generalization is a true statement.
The requirement for a valid XHTML is that all the tags should be closed. This is actually the difference between HTML and XHTML.
percent includes all answers, whereas valid percent excludes missing answers of I don't know or blanks
Distinguishing between valid and faulty generalizations helps ensure that conclusions drawn from specific instances are accurate and reliable. Valid generalizations are based on sound reasoning and evidence, while faulty ones can lead to misinformation and unfair judgments. By being able to identify the difference, we can make better decisions and avoid stereotyping or making misleading assumptions.
If generalizations are supported by the text or story,they are valid generalizations.If they are not supported by the text or by logic,they are faulty generalization.Hope that helps your learning desires!!!Your answer giver,Kate
A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, while an invalid argument is one where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
A void contract is not legally valid from the beginning, while a voidable contract is initially valid but can be canceled or voided by one of the parties involved.