0
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What features of an argument make it inductive reasoning?
One AnswerInductive reasoning is a form of logical reasoning that begins with a particular argument and arrives at a universal logical conclusion. An example is when you first observe falling objects, and as a result, formulate a general operational law of gravity.A critical factor for identifying an argument based on inductive reasoning is the nature relationships among the premises underlying the propositions in an argument. Logical reasoning exists in an argument only when a premise or premises flow with logical necessity into the resulting conclusion. Hence, there is no sequence.The following is an example of an Inductive Argument:Premise 1. You know that a woman named Daffodil lives somewhere your building.Premise 2: Daffodil has a shrill voice.Premise 3. You hear a woman in the apartment next door yelling with a yelling with a shrill voice.Conclusion: It is likely that the woman fighting in the apartment is Daffodil.Note how the detailed premises logically flow together into the conclusion. This is the hallmark of inductive reasoning.Another AnswerI have heard of a mathematical proof that quantifies inductive reasoning through patterns in numbers, its called Occums Razor.Another AnswerThe information contained in the premises of an argument is supposed to provide evidence for its conclusion. In a good (valid) argument, they do; the conclusion follows logically from the premises. In a bad (invalid) argument, they do not.When the evidence provided by the premises is conclusive, or, minimally, supposed to be conclusive, the argument is a deductive one; otherwise, it is inductive.To use the metaphor of containment, in a valid deductive argument the information contained in its conclusion is always equal to or less than the information provided by its premises. For example, where 'p' stands for any proposition, the argument: "p, hence p" is valid (even though it's trivial). The information in the conclusion is obviously the same as the information in the premise. (In an actual case, this valid argument would be "sound" if the premise were true, and it would be valid but "unsound" if the premise were false.)By way of contrast, in an inductive argument, the information in the premises is always weaker than the information in the conclusion.For example, suppose that all the senators from a certain state have been male. Someone might argue that, since the first senator was male and since the second senator was male and since the third senator was male and so on, then the next senator will also be male. In this case, the information contained in the conclusion is not already contained in its premises (because its premises say nothing about the next senator). Is this, then, a successful argument?Obviously, it is not in the sense that there is a logical gap between the information contained in the premises and the information contained in the conclusion. On the other hand, some might argue that the premises provide some, but not conclusive, evidence of the truth of the conclusion. It might, in other words, be more likely that the next senator would be male, but that is not for certain.Therefore, in a deductive argument, the relevant evidence is, if true and the argument is valid, conclusive.However, in an inductive argument, the evidence provided by all the premises is never conclusive.CautionPeople often confuse inductive and deductive arguments. inductive arguments often reason from a set of particulars to a generality; deductive arguments often reason from a generality to a set of particulars. For example, if I see three robins (the bird, not Batman's sidekick) and they all have red breasts, then I can use inductive reasoning to say that all robins have red breasts (I start with what I've seen and make a general rule about it). Once I've made the rule that all robins have red breasts, then I can use deductive reasoning to say that the next robin I see will have a red breast (I start with a general rule and make a statement about a particular thing I will see).However, there are deductive arguments that move from general premises to general conclusions. Eg., All dogs are canines. All canines are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are mammals. And inductive arguments that move from particulars to particulars. Eg., These shoes are like the ones I bought last year at Zmart. The ones I bought last year are still wearable so these shoes are likely to be wearable too.
What are synonyms for false?
A synonym for false is fake, made-up, fictitious and pretend. incorrect, wrong, mistaken, misleading, faulty, inaccurate, invalid, erroneous
When these types of words are used in an argument they are the indicator that a premise has been made and a conclusion will soon follow?
Conclusion indicators
What is a logical argument in which each statement made is supported by a statement that is accepted as true?
A Proof, 2-column proofs for geometry are common.
What is the relation between sine wave and frequency?
A sine wave is a periodic function and, by suitably adjusting the argument of the sine function, can be made to fit a wide functions with different frequencies.
Why is it important to examine evidence of an argument?
Examining evidence helps to ensure that the argument is well-supported and credible. It allows for a deeper understanding of the topic by providing factual support for claims made. By evaluating the evidence, one can determine the validity and strength of the argument being presented.
What are valid arguments?
Valid arguments are those where the conclusion logically follows from the premises. In other words, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Valid arguments obey the rules of logic and reasoning.
Is it true that wills made when people are single are not valid after they get married?
The rules are going to depend upon the specific state or country. In most of the states, a will made prior to a marriage (not in contemplation of marriage) will be held invalid or partially invalid.
What is the difference between valid and sound...?
A valid argument is an argument whose conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises. It is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. An example of a valid argument is:1. If Thales was right, then everything is made of water.2. It's not the case that everything was made of water.3. So, Thales wasn't right.This argument has the form: If P then Q, ~Q, therefore ~P. The conclusion is derived using Modus Tollens. All of the premises are true, and so is the conclusion.However, the validity of an argument does not entail the truth of its conclusion. Consider another example of a valid argument:1. If Socrates was a Philosopher, then Socrates was a happy alligator.2. Socrates was a Philosopher.3. So, Socrates was a happy alligator.This argument is valid: it is of the form If P then Q, P, therefore Q. The conclusion is derived using Modus Ponens (a rule for logical inference which preserves truth).However, the conclusion is false. Because it is valid, one of the premises must also be false: and, we can see, premise 1 is the culprit. If we replace it with a better premise, such as "If Socrates was a Philosopher, then Socrates existed", we derive a different and true conclusion (that Socrates existed).A sound argument is an argument with two features: (i) it is valid, and (ii) its premises are all true.It is not clear whether we ought to include other features, like non-circularity, in the necessary conditions for soundness; convention has yet to determine it.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.
What is a valid argument?
A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises. This means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Validity refers to the logical structure of the argument rather than the truth of the premises.
What is the difference between valid and sound argument?
A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, regardless of whether the premises are true. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. In other words, a sound argument is both valid and has true premises.
What are the answers to the evaluating arguments quiz chapter 7?
Evaluating Arguments QuizResults Reporter Out of 7 questions, you answered 7 correctly with a final grade of 100% 7 correct (100%) 0 incorrect (0%) 0 unanswered (0%) Your Results:The correct answer for each question is indicated by a . 1 CORRECT It's no use going on about whether this law is just. It was passed democratically. A) Valid B) Strong C) Can't be made either valid or strong Feedback: The correct answer is B. The assumed premise, Most laws that were passed democratically are just, makes the argument strong. The premise needed for a valid argument, "All democratically passed laws are just," is not as plausible. 2 CORRECT How can you be so critical of Pride and Prejudice? You never read it. A) Valid B) Strong C) Can't be made either valid or strong Feedback: The correct answer is A. The assumed premise, You are not justified in being critical of any book you have not read, is plausible and makes the argument valid. 3 CORRECT I wouldn't call her reliable. She was late with her last rent check. A) Valid B) Strong C) Can't be made either valid or strong Feedback: No assumed premise can make the argument either strong or valid. The weakest possible assumption, "If she was late with her rent check last month, she probably isn't reliable," is far too implausible. 4 CORRECT It's not safe to let Dave drive you home. He just had a furious argument with his boss. A) Valid B) Strong C) Can't be made either valid or strong Feedback: The correct answer is B. The assumed premise, When Dave has just had a furious argument, it's usually not safe to let him drive, makes this a strong argument. It isn't plausible to assume (as you'd have to for a valid argument) that Dave is an unsafe driver every time he's had a furious argument. 5 CORRECT Look, it's snowing. The air will be warmer today. A) Valid B) Strong C) Can't be made either valid or strong Feedback: The correct answer is B. The assumed premise, When it is snowing, the air becomes warmer, makes this a strong argument. 6 CORRECT We didn't miss the bus. It isn't 8:04 yet. A) Valid B) Strong C) Can't be made either valid or strong Feedback: The correct answer is B. The assumed premise, If it isn't 8:04, the bus probably has not come yet, makes the argument strong. 7 CORRECT That isn't art. A child could do it. A) Valid B) Strong C) Can't be made either valid or strong Feedback: No assumed premise can make the argument either strong or valid. The weakest possibility, "Very few children could make art," is too vague to be plausible.
How do you make a social security number valid?
You don't. The number you're assigned by the Social Security Administration will already be valid. A number you get any other way is invalid and can't be made valid. (Even if the number itself is "valid" in the sense "it's an actual social security number", it's not valid for you unless it's your social security number.)
Is dis a valid scrabble answer?
According to the rules of Scrabble, the prefix dis- would not be a valid word to play.However an argument could be made that DIS as a commonly accepted acronym (for example: Defence Intelligence Staff or Daytona International Speedway) could be a valid scoring word.
Does a will made while husband and wife are married still be legal after the two are divorced?
Generally, a will made while married is made invalid by a divorce for any provisions made for your spouse.Generally, a will made while married is made invalid by a divorce for any provisions made for your spouse.Generally, a will made while married is made invalid by a divorce for any provisions made for your spouse.Generally, a will made while married is made invalid by a divorce for any provisions made for your spouse.
Is a will valid if made through and attorney?
Yes. A will is valid as long as it is made of sound mind. It sould be witnessed by at least one other person (often two) and it must declare that all other wills and testaments are invalid. Wills have been found to be valid if written by the person who is dying or soon will die and witnessed by no-one. A court once found a will to be valid by a man who was about to die and simply wrote on a piece of paper "All to mum".
When the premise of an argument relies on mention of the character background or personality of a person what is the logical fallacy being committed?
The logical fallacy being committed in this scenario is known as an ad hominem attack. This fallacy involves attacking the character of the person making the argument rather than addressing the actual points being made in the argument. It is considered invalid because it does not address the substance of the argument itself.
