Assertion: argument | /r/HasProperty | valid
Facets:
value: deductively
type: MANNER
value: often
type: DEGREE
value: formally
type: MANNER
value: in this case
type: OTHER
value: in logic
type: OTHER
value: in deductive reasoning
type: OTHER
value: independently of
type: OTHER
value: in order to obtain help
type: PURPOSE
value: to show
type: PURPOSE
value: for the exact same reason
type: CAUSE
value: due to its formal or logical structure
type: CAUSE
value: to mean
type: PURPOSE
value: in order for a deductive argument
type: PURPOSE
value: be for the conclusion
type: PURPOSE
value: respectively
type: DEGREE
Source sentences:
text: If yes, the argument is valid.
text: Often an argument is invalid because there is a missing premise—the supply of which would render it valid.
text: So, you are faced with two arguments, one valid and one invalid, and you don’t know which is the intended argument.
text: Thus: Socrates is a man, all men are mortal therefore Socrates is mortal is clearly an argument (a valid one at that), because it is clear it is asserted that Socrates is mortal
text: An argument is termed formally valid if it has structural self-consistency, i.e. if when the operands between premises are all true, the derived conclusion is always also true.
text: Arguments in which it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false at the same time are valid arguments.
text: If an argument is valid, it is a valid deduction, and if its premises are true, the conclusion must be true: a valid argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.
text: If yes, the argument is valid.
text: If an argument is valid, it is a valid deduction, and if its premises are true, the conclusion must be true: a valid argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.
text: An argument is formally valid if and only if the denial of the conclusion is incompatible with accepting all the premises.
text: Based on the above characterizations, whether an argument is deductive or inductive turns on whether the arguer intends the argument to be valid or merely inductively strong, respectively.
text: An argument can be valid or invalid or a combination of both.
text: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says that an argument can be valid if it follows logically from its premises, but the conclusion can still be wrong if the premises are incorrect:
text: An argument is considered to be successful (or valid ) when the premises are true (or believable) and the premises support the conclusion.
text: However, it should be noted that whether or not an argument is "valid" does not depend on whether its premises are true.
text: This argument is logically valid.
text: To say that an argument is “sound” is to say that that argument is valid and that all of its premises are true.
text: Is the argument valid?
text: Is the argument valid?
text: It follows that the argument is valid.
text: Thus the argument is valid and has only true premises.
text: Is the argument valid?
text: The argument is in fact valid, so we next check whether the premises are true.
text: It follows that while the argument is valid, it is unsound.
text: If an argument is valid, then if its premises are true, its final conclusion must also be true.
text: If an argument is sound, then it is valid and has only true premises.
text: The argument may be valid or invalid, independently of whether they are sound.
text: The premise is true, and the argument is valid, because the conclusion does follow from the premise!
text: The reader should consider whether argument 1 is valid (read Meditations on First Philosophy by Descartes, chapters 1, 2).
text: It does not matter whether the premises or conclusion are actually true for an argument to be valid.
text: Indeed, this means that an argument with inconsistent premises is always valid.
text: It is called the counter-example set for the following reason: if a possible situation is found in which the members of this set are all true (and so the set is found to be consistent), this situation provides a counter-example to the arguments being valid,
text: Hence the counter-example set is inconsistent and the argument is valid.
text: Use a similar approach to show that arguments 3 and 7 are valid (and use it to consider argument 1).
text: Arguments with this defect have a structure that is grammatically close to arguments which are valid and make no fallacies.
text: An argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is a consequence of its premises.
text: In many cases, an argument can be known to be valid by means of a deduction of its conclusion from its premises but non-deductive methods such as Venn diagrams and other graphic procedures have been proposed.
text: Remember that an argument is valid if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false at the same time.
text: Is this argument valid?
text: Hence, the argument is valid, because if it is true that only rich people own a Mercedes-Benz, and if it is true that Cassandra owns one, then it is impossible for it to be false that Cassandra is rich.
text: For an argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow logically from the premises.
text: If the conclusion follows from the premises of an argument, but not all of the premises are true, the argument is both valid and unsound.
text: It is not concerned with whether the premises are true or whether the argument is strong or valid, i.e., whether the premises actually support the conclusion as the author intends them to do.
text: An argument is called sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true.
text: Here all the premises are true and the argument is valid.
text: Further, even if an argument is valid but some or all of its premises are false then also the argument is sound.
text: Here both the premises are false but the argument is valid.
text: An argument in the propositional calculus is valid whenever it is a substitution-instance of an argument form in which it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
text: If the conclusion is also true on each of these lines, then the inference captured by the argument form is a valid one, and arguments of this form must all be valid.
text: If, however, there is even a single line on which all of the premises are true but the conclusion is false, then the inference is invalid, and we cannot be sure whether arguments of this form are valid or invalid.
text: It follows that all arguments sharing in thisgeneral form must be valid.
text: The argument must be valid or strong.
text: In everyday conversation, people sometimes say, "His argument is valid" to mean that the argument is good, legitimate, or the conclusion true.
text: To determine that an argument is valid or strong, is to maintain that IF the premises are true, then the conclusion either must be true (in valid arguments) or probably true (in strong arguments).
text: Arguments containing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.
text: An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context.
text: The argument is valid and its soundness seems to depend on the truth of (3), assuming (CC) is true.
text: When that happens, it is said that the argument is valid.
text: In this case, that won't work, because the argument is valid (i.e., deductively successful).
text: Step 4: Determine whether the argument is valid.
text: This argument is valid because the argument, as a whole, is always true.
text: Any argument that can be put into this form is valid.
text: Step 4: Determine whether the argument is valid.
text: He reasoned that all perfections can exist together in a single entity, and that Descartes' argument is still valid.
text: More specifically, we ask whether the argument is either deductively valid or inductively strong.
text: All arguments are either valid or invalid, and either sound or unsound; there is no middle ground, such as being somewhat valid.
text: An argument is valid if the premises can’t all be true without the conclusion also being true.
text: An argument is valid if the truth of all its premises forces the conclusion to be true.
text: An argument is valid if it would be inconsistent for all its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false.
text: An argument is valid if its conclusion follows with certainty from its premises.
text: An argument is valid if it has no counterexample, that is, a possible situation that makes all the premises true and the conclusion false.
text: That argument is valid due to its formal or logical structure.
text: To see why, notice that if the word ‘ill’ were replaced with ‘happy’, the argument would still be valid because it would retain its special logical structure (called modus ponens by logicians).
text: We are very likely to use the information that the argument is not deductively valid to ask ourselves what premises, if they were to be assumed, would make the argument be valid.
text: In classical logic, an argument is (deductively) valid if its conclusion follows from its premises -- if it is impossible for its premises to be true and its conclusion false.
text: The argument is deductively valid, but it follows that its conclusion is reasonable rather than certain.
text: This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity.
text: When the premises are in fact true and the argument is valid, then we call it sound.
text: In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
text: In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
text: An argument is valid if and only if it would be contradictory for the conclusion to be false if all of the premises are true.
text: The argument would be just as valid were the premises and conclusion false.
text: A standard view is that whether an argument is valid is a matter of the argument's logical form.
text: In order for a deductive argument to be sound, the argument must be valid and all the premises must be true.
text: In this case, again, the argument is valid, but unsound.
text: This argument is valid: it is of the form
text: In this case, the above argument is neither valid nor sound.
text: An argument then, can only be valid if the negation of the corresponding conditional is a contradiction.
text: 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.
text: In deductive reasoning, an argument is "valid" when, assuming the argument's premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
text: If the argument is valid and the premises are true, then the argument is "sound".
text: If an argument is deductively valid, and its premises are true, then it is logically impossible for the conclusion to be false.
text: In general, an argument is valid if and only if its corresponding conditional is necessarily true.
text: Under suitable assumptions about the nature of accessibility relations between possible worlds, this argument is valid: from it is possible that it is necessary that p, one can infer that it is necessary that p. Setting aside the possibility that one might challenge this widely accepted modal principle, it seems that opponents of the argument are bound to challenge the acceptability of the premise.
text: It is a mistake for a theist to say: “Since the premise is true (and the argument is valid), this argument shows that the conclusion of the argument is true”, just as it is a mistake for a non-theist to say that the argument
text: Similarly, it is a mistake for a theist to say: “Since it is rational to accept the premises (and the argument is valid), this argument shows that it is rational to accept the claim that God exists”, just as it is a mistake for the non-theist to say: “Since it is rational to accept the premises of the non-theistic argument (and that argument is valid), the non-theistic argument shows that it is rational to accept the claim that God does not exist”.
text: Similarly, it is a mistake for a theist to say: “Since it is rational to accept the premises (and the argument is valid), this argument shows that it is rational to accept the claim that God exists”, just as it is a mistake for the non-theist to say: “Since it is rational to accept the premises of the non-theistic argument (and that argument is valid), the non-theistic argument shows that it is rational to accept the claim that God does not exist”.
text: For example, in part II of his Summa Logicae, William of Ockham presents a comprehensive account of the necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of simple sentences, in order to show which arguments are valid and which are not.
text: (Note that in a distinct philosophical use of the term, an argument is sound when it is both valid and its premises are true.)
text: An argument is valid when the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion.
text: In other words, if your argument is valid then there’s no way for the premises to all be true and the conclusion to be false.
text: This argument is valid because, if it’s true that all tuna are indeed tasty and if Socrates is a tuna, then Socrates must be tasty.
text: Notice that this argument is valid.
text: Step 1: Check to see if the argument is valid.
text: If you can show that the argument isn’t logically valid, then you can stop the train in its tracks right then and there.
text: If the argument is valid, proceed to step 2.
text: So suppose that I want to check and see if some argument is valid:
text: If I suppose that both (1) and (2) are true, even though they may seem a little dubious, I can see that (3) is indeed entailed from them, so the argument is valid.
text: Arguments that are not valid are said to be invalid.
text: An argument can be valid or invalid or a combination of both.
text: You can put them on the defensive by asking them to justify why they believe that the distorted stance that they present is the same as the one that you originally proposed; since the two are different, your opponent will either be forced to admit that their argument was invalid, or they will try to justify it by using even more fallacious reasoning, which you can then attack.
text: You can put them on the defensive by asking them to justify why they believe that the distorted stance that they present is the same as the one that you originally proposed; since the two are different, your opponent will either be forced to admit that their argument was invalid, or they will try to justify it by using even more fallacious reasoning, which you can then attack.
text: The argument may be valid or invalid, independently of whether they are sound.
text: Fallacies are defects that cause an argument to be invalid, unsound, or weak.
text: The argument would still be invalid for the exact same reason.
text: This argument is also invalid because it does not disprove the premise; if the premise is true, then source A may be a hypocrite or even changed their mind, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective.
text: How do we show that an argument is invalid?
text: If we show that an argument is invalid, what do we do then?
text: To show that an argument is invalid, we must give an example of a possibility in which the premises could be true and the conclusion false at the same time.
text: Any argument in which it IS possible to have true premises and a false conclusion at the same time is invalid.
text: We do not show an argument to be invalid by saying one of the premises is false.
text: Yet, when you judge an argument to be invalid, you need to consider whether it might be strong.
text: In conclusion, to show that an argument is invalid, you must give an example of how the premises could be true and the premises false at the same time.
text: If an argument is invalid, ask if it could still be strong.
text: He argues that there is no theory of invalidity—no systematic way to show that an argument is invalid other than to show that it has true premises and a false conclusion (1981, 164).
text: Here the argument is invalid and the premises are also false.
text: To say that an argument is unsound amounts to the claim that the argument is either invalid or some of its premises are false.
text: If, however, there is even a single line on which all of the premises are true but the conclusion is false, then the inference is invalid, and we cannot be sure whether arguments of this form are valid or invalid.
text: You must remember that when we say an argument is invalid, we are NOT saying it is a bad argument.
text: To say an argument is invalid is not to say the argument is bad.
text: Proponents must therefore demonstrate that only design can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid.
text: All arguments are either valid or invalid, and either sound or unsound; there is no middle ground, such as being somewhat valid.
text: This argument is invalid because the premises provide no support whatsoever for the conclusion.
text: This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition.
text: An argument that is not valid is said to be "invalid".
text: Therefore, the argument is logically 'invalid', even though the conclusion could be considered 'true' in general terms.
text: It the missing premiss or conclusion were to be explicitly supplied, the argument would be seen to be formally invalid.
text: Possibly in this case, the conclusion was left unstated both for the reason the argument is invalid and for the supposed rhetorically persuasive effect of appealing to one's vanity in order to obtain help.
text: Focusing just on fallacies in sense (a) above, namely fallacies of argumentation, some researchers define a fallacy as an argument that is deductively invalid or that has very little inductive strength.
text: If a deductive conclusion follows duly from its premises, then it is valid; otherwise, it is invalid (that an argument is invalid is not to say it is false; it may have a true conclusion, just not on account of the premises).
text: Let’s now look at an invalid argument so that we can talk about how it is that an argument can be invalid:
text: This argument is obviously invalid since the truth of the conclusion is not entailed from the premises.
text: You can tell that the argument is invalid as written, but there’s also an obvious implicit premise that would make it valid: all tuna are fish.