Assertion: argument | /r/HasProperty | strong
Facets:
value: inductively
type: MANNER
value: very
type: DEGREE
value: moderately
type: DEGREE
value: sometimes
type: DEGREE
value: as in the example of elephants
type: OTHER
value: logically
type: DEGREE
value: arguably
type: DEGREE
Source sentences:
text: If so, the argument is strong.
text: Otherwise, it is weak.
text: The rules range over all the four stages of argumentation: at the confrontation stage there is a rule which says one may not prevent the other party from expressing their view; for the argumentation stage there is a rule which requires argumentation to be logically strong and in accord with one or another of three general argumentation schemes; at the closing stage there is a rule that the participants themselves are to decide which party was successful based on the quality of the argumentation they have made: if the proponent carries the day, the opponent should acknowledge it, and vice versa.
text: Arguments in which the premises provide some degree of probable support for the conclusion are called strong arguments.
text: If so, the argument is strong.
text: An inductive argument is said to be cogent if and only if the truth of the argument's premises would render the truth of the conclusion probable (i.e., the argument is strong), and the argument's premises are, in fact, true.
text: If the truth of the premises makes it unlikely (but not impossible) that the conclusion is false, then we may say that the argument is inductively strong.
text: “Jones voted for McX,” because they are signaling with the word “probably” that they intend to present an argument that is inductively strong but not valid.
text: An argument may be very strong or moderately strong.
text: An argument may be very strong or moderately strong.
text: If we revise our conclusion to say, "Hence, compared to other people without his family history, you have an increased likelihood of getting cancer," then this argument is moderately strong.
text: We cannot say the argument is very strong, because there are too many other variables that affect whether a person gets cancer or not.
text: If an argument is invalid, ask if it could still be strong.
text: For an argument to be inductively strong, it must be an inductive argument (i.e. if all the premises are true, the conclusion likely follows).
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: The argument must be valid or strong.
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: More specifically, we ask whether the argument is either deductively valid or inductively strong.
text: Its aim is an account of argument that can be used to decide when arguments are strong and weak; good and bad; and plausible and implausible.
text: If invalid, they are strong or weak and then, depending on the premises, cogent or not cogent.
text: Arguably the argument is too strong and might be accused of "cheating".
text: Instead, an argument is "strong" when, assuming the argument's premises are true, the conclusion is probably true.
text: If the argument is strong and the premises are true, then the argument is "cogent".
text: In other words, provide the reader with facts that prove your argument is strong.
text: If an argument is inductively weak, then it cannot be a good argument since the premises do not provide good reasons for accepting the conclusion.
text: Fallacies are defects that cause an argument to be invalid, unsound, or weak.
text: Sometimes the arguments are so weak, as in the example of elephants, that the use of abductive reasoning is noted, although most people would say that it is nonsense and not reasoning).
text: If one of the questions cannot be answered clearly this is an indication that the argument is weak, and answering No to either of the two questions cancels the presumption for the conclusion, i.e., makes the argument into a bad argument from expert opinion.
text: Its aim is an account of argument that can be used to decide when arguments are strong and weak; good and bad; and plausible and implausible.
text: Because the implicit premise is implausible -- as could be shown by citing many examples where Dr. Oz’s advice can be shown to be questionable -- an NLD analysis entails the (correct) conclusion that the argument is weak.
text: If invalid, they are strong or weak and then, depending on the premises, cogent or not cogent.
text: This argument is weak, but better than the fallacy alone.
text: The argument is very weak and should always be shot down.
text: The argument is weak because the sample is non-random and the sample size is very small.