0
What else can I help you with?
What type of argument can move from a specific premise to a specific conclusion or from a general premise to a general conclusion?
Valid ArgumentThanks to the above answerer, I got this question wrong on my quiz.The correct answer is Valid argument.
In reasoning the conclusion derived from the premise is likely to be valid but is not necessarily so?
Inductive
What is the difference between a valid deductive argument and a fallacy?
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.
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.
His argument can move from a specific premise to a specific conclusion or from a general premise to a general conclusion?
Yes, arguments can move from a specific premise to a specific conclusion, which is known as a deductive argument. They can also move from a general premise to a general conclusion, which is known as an inductive argument. The structure and validity of the argument depend on the relationship between the premise and conclusion.
When a is unstated it is best to try to supply a reasonable assumption that would make the argument valid or strong?
Premise
What is a premise in an argument?
A premise in an argument is a statement or proposition that serves as the basis for the conclusion of the argument. It is presented as a reason or evidence to support the conclusion that the arguer is trying to establish. Premises are essential in constructing sound and valid arguments.
What makes a valid argument invalid?
A valid argument becomes invalid when it contains a logical fallacy, such as a false premise or faulty reasoning. Additionally, if the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises provided, the argument is considered invalid.
When the premise of a deductive argument follow the correct form we call the argument?
Valid. A deductive argument is considered valid when it follows the correct form of logic, even if the premises are not true. This means that if the premises of a valid deductive argument are true, then the conclusion must also be true.
What is a valid argument?
In my opinion, a valid argument is any argument that opens a dialogue (without anger of course) where the opposing side can see and understand your side and may actually cause doubt as to whether they were right at all.Opposing argument: Arguments begin with a premise or premises and end with a conclusion. Take the argument above, here we have a premise that states a valid argument is one that opens a dialog, qualifying that opening as non emotional, and concludes that by opening with a non emotional argument of non specified nature the opposing side will understand the correctness of this argument and thereby have doubt about its own argument. Of course, since the premise is far too vague to even lead to a conclusion, there is no doubt by the opposition that another definition is required to effectively explain what a valid argument is.In order to have a valid argument, the truth of the conclusion must be a logical consequence of the premise. Take this argument, for example, that has declared the original argument not valid as a valid argument because the truth of the conclusion quite clearly is not a logical consequence of its premise. That would be the premise. Now this argument will lead to a logical conclusion proving that the above argument was not valid. The above argument may be a deductive argument that has, in that contributors opinion, deduced that the conclusion of that argument is a logical consequence of the premise. Or it may be a inductive argument that claims the conclusion is supported by the premises and if a deductive argument the above argument may or may not be valid or may or may not be sound. In this case, the above argument is neither valid nor sound.The only kind of argument that can logically be called a valid argument is one where the the truth of the conclusion is actually a logical consequence of the premise or premises and its corresponding conditional is necessarily true. An argument then, can only be valid if the negation of the corresponding conditional is a contradiction. For example:It is either good or badIt is not goodTherefore it is bad.In its application we can test if an argument is valid or not by translating the premise and conclusion into sentential or predicate logic sentences. Then constructing from these the negation from the corresponding conditional and finally see if from this a contradiction can be obtained. Or a truth table if feasible can be used to test if the premises come out false in every row. This truth table usually relies upon Boolean functions in terms of true or false. Then alternately construct a truth tree to test if all the branches are closed. If successful this proves the validity of the original argument.In attempting to test the original argument we find that argument is lacking in sufficient premises to test it. We could break the premises down to this:In his opinion any argument is a valid argumentAny argument that opens a dialog with out angerAn argument that allows the opposing side to see his argumentThe opposing argument then doubts their own reasoning.Broken down this way, the premises do not lead to a logical conclusion. If any argument is a valid argument then the opposing argument would be valid as well. Let's try breaking it down this way.Any argument is a valid argument that opens a dialogWithout anger, where the opposing side can see that argumentThus, or possibly causing doubt in the opposing arguments reasoning.Of course, if the original premise is true then there is no point in arguing as any opposition by definition is non valid since it did not open the dialog. However, the conclusion is a logical consequence of the original premise. It is the second premise that makes no sense if the original premise is true, because no opening argument need be made in order for an opposing argument to see that it is an opening argument and by definition the only valid argument made. Thus, the premise must original premise must be false, but the second premise is clearly true leaving the conclusion in a state of illogic.The original argument really can not be broken down by any truth table or truth tree. It is merely an opinion offered for lack of a better explanation. In any argument, if the one making the argument assumes the game is to prove the other person wrong, then the game is lost. Arguments should only be used to derive a truth or truths. When this is understood, those making arguments are never wrong. The premise itself may be either true or false but never wrong. May be valid or not, sound or not sound but never wrong. Since the original argument was offered as merely an opinion it is of course, not wrong. It his however, not a valid argument.
This argument can move from a specific premise to a specific conclusion or from a general premise to a general conclusion?
An argument can move from a specific premise to a specific conclusion by providing detailed evidence or examples to support the specific claim. On the other hand, an argument can move from a general premise to a general conclusion by making a broad assertion based on the general principle presented. Both forms of arguments can be effective depending on the context and the strength of the premises.
Which syllogism is solid?
A solid syllogism is one that has true premises and a valid logical structure. An example of a solid syllogism would be: All humans are mortal (true premise) Socrates is a human (true premise) Therefore, Socrates is mortal (valid conclusion)
