Assertion: argument's conclusion | /r/HasProperty | true
Facets:
value: on each of these lines
type: LOCATION
value: clearly
type: DEGREE
value: in valid arguments
type: OTHER
value: probably
type: DEGREE
value: given this supposition
type: OTHER
value: at the same time
type: TEMPORAL
value: under that interpretation
type: OTHER
value: in any way
type: MANNER
value: as a matter of logic."​​
type: MANNER
value: in all four of the examples
type: OTHER
value: in general terms
type: MANNER
value: further
type: DEGREE
value: on that line
type: OTHER
value: always
type: DEGREE
Source sentences:
text: Inductive arguments, by contrast, can have different degrees of logical strength: the stronger or more cogent the argument, the greater the probability that the conclusion is true, the weaker the argument, the lesser that probability.
text: You start from a basic statement or “premise,” and as long as that premise is true there is no logical way for the conclusion to be false.
text: 13) true; the fact that the premises are all true while the conclusion is false shows that it is indeed possible for the premises all to be true while the conclusion is false.
text: Therefore, the argument is logically 'invalid', even though the conclusion could be considered 'true' in general terms.
text: If the premises of an inductive argument are assumed true, is it probable the conclusion is also true?
text: true, is it probable the conclusion is also true?
text: In other words, the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises—if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
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: Under a given interpretation, a valid argument may have false premises that render it inconclusive: the conclusion of a valid argument with one or more false premises may be either true or false.
text: A form of argument is valid if and only if the conclusion is true under all interpretations of that argument in which the premises are true.
text: : Valid argument; if the premises are true the conclusion must be true.
text: : Valid argument; if the premises are true the conclusion must be true.
text: (This does not mean the conclusion has to be true; it is only true if the premises are true, which they may not be!)
text: (This does not mean the conclusion has to be true; it is only true if the premises are true, which they may not be!)
text: If an arguer offers an argument in order to persuade an audience that the conclusion is true, then it is plausible to think that the arguer is inviting the audience to make an inference from the argument’s premises to its conclusion.
text: The premises represent R’s reasons for believing that the conclusion is true and R thinks that her belief in the truth of the premises is justified.
text: A contrary view is that arguments can be used in ways other than showing that their conclusions are true.
text: That is, necessarily if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true.
text: Thus we may say that the truth of the premises in a valid argument guarantees that the conclusion is also true.
text: In a deductive argument, validity is the principle that if all the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.
text: However, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is also true, as a matter of logic."​​
text: Further, if the premises are true, the conclusion, in any way, must also be true.
text: Inductive argument is one where the premises are supposed to support the conclusion such that the conclusion is likely to be true if the premises are true.
text: It rather depends on whether the conclusion follows from them, which is to say, on whether under the assumption that the premises are true, the the conclusion must be true as well.
text: Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true.
text: If an argument is valid, then if its premises are true, its final conclusion must also be true.
text: It follows that if an argument is sound, its final conclusion has to be true.
text: The conclusion of this argument is true, so some or all the premises are true.
text: It does not matter whether the premises or conclusion are actually true for an argument to be valid.
text: The conclusion is true.' is valid (regardless of the conclusion).
text: The negation of the conclusion is absurd given the truth of the premises and so the conclusion must be true.
text: Being a valid argument does not necessarily mean the conclusion will be true.
text: It is valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true.
text: However, in the second argument (due to Biro, 1977) given the minor premise, the major cannot be known to be true unless the conclusion is known to be true.
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: But on that line, the conclusion is also true, so the inference is valid.
text: While the conclusion is true on the first line, on the third line it is false.
text: As the truth-table shows, the premises are true only when both of the component statements are false, in which case the conclusion is also true.
text: Despite its greater size, this truth-table establishes validity in exactly the same way as its more compact predecessors: both premises are true only on the first, fifth, seventh, and eighth lines, and the conclusion is also true on each of these lines.
text: A good argument is one in which the premises give good reasons to believe the conclusion is true.
text: The conclusion may be true, but the reasons do not give good reason to accept it.
text: To say the conclusion follows necessarily means that if the premises are true the conclusion must also be true.
text: The term "valid" then is reserved only for arguments in which the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, that is, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be 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: However, formal logic makes no such guarantee if any premise is false; the conclusion can be either true or false.
text: In any context, including academic debate, a conversation among friends, political discourse, advertising, or for comedic purposes, the arguer may use fallacious reasoning to try to persuade the listener or reader, by means other than offering relevant evidence, that the conclusion is true.
text: These arguments are not using any language that would indicate that the conclusions are only probably true.
text: When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is a fallacious appeal to the common man.
text: If the arguer believes that the truth of the premises provides only good reasons to believe the conclusion is probably true, then the argument is inductive.
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: The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
text: Or in other words: the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true.
text: Inductive arguments can be seen as strong (the conclusion is more likely to be true because of support provided by the premises) or as weak.
text: Argument whose conclusion must be true if its premises are
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: When an argument claims merely that the truth of its premises make it likely or probable that its conclusion is also true, it is said to involve an inductive inference.
text: The conclusions of such arguments may be either true or false, so they are entirely useless in any effort to gain new information.
text: The conclusion might be true, and might be thought probably true, yet it can be false.
text: In contrast, in inductive reasoning, an argument's premises can never guarantee that the conclusion must be true; therefore, inductive arguments can never be valid or sound.
text: That is, the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.
text: Note that in all four of the examples above, the conclusion can be true.
text: Let us imagine a non-sequitor, for example that is unsound and invalid, but the conclusion is true:
text: Not, I hope, on the basis of your belief that the conclusion is true or false.
text: This is a good argument because if the premises were true the conclusion would have to be true.
text: The conclusion is true –
text: This is a good argument, despite the fact that both its premises are false, because the conclusion follows from the premises: if the premises were true the conclusion would have to be true.
text: The reason is only acceptable if the conclusion is true, so
text: Notice that (9) is, intuitively, a valid argument: the premises really "force" the conclusion in the sense that if they are true then the conclusion must be true.
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: As a general scientific principle, the Prime Principle of Confirmation can be applied in a wide variety of circumstances and is not limited to circumstances in which we have other reasons to believe the relevant conclusion is true.
text: 4) false; all that is required is that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true.
text: In order to determine if a conclusion is true, one must read the premises and check that they are true.
text: There are some very sophisticated ways of doing this, but one general strategy is to suppose that all of the premises are true and then to see if, given this supposition, the conclusion must be true.
text: This is a bad argument, despite the fact its premises are both true and its conclusion is true.
text: Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance.
text: A good argument is such that if its premises are true its conclusion must be true (or as we’ll see below, probably true).
text: If its premises are true then its conclusion will also be true.
text: Some logicians designate the combination of true premises and a valid inference as a sound argument; it is a piece of reasoning whose conclusion must be true.
text: If all the premises of a valid deductive argument are true, then its conclusion must be true.
text: What makes this a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion, but the logical necessity of the conclusion, given the two premises.
text: If the premises of a valid argument are true, then its conclusion must also be true.
text: premisses necessitate the conclusion, even if one or more of the premisses is false and the conclusion is false; in a sound argument, true premisses necessitate a true conclusion.
text: In other words, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if all the premises are true.
text: Under a given interpretation, a valid argument may have false premises that render it inconclusive: the conclusion of a valid argument with one or more false premises may be either true or false.
text: This can be done by giving a counter example of the same form of argument with premises that are true under a given interpretation, but a conclusion that is false under that interpretation.
text: In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they were true, then it would be unlikely, although possible, that the conclusion is false.
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: (Note that Perls', argument has a good structure, so if the conclusion is false, one of the premisses has to be false.)
text: "One or more premises of this argument are false, so the conclusion is false.
text: Since the conclusion of the argument is false, all its premises are false.
text: As you can see, if the premises are true (and they are), then it simply isn't possible for the conclusion to be false.
text: This is an argument in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false.
text: In this example, even if both premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false (maybe Socrates was allergic to fish, for example).
text: A valid argument is an argument for which there is no possible situation in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false.
text: Similarly, an argument with a necessary conclusion can in no situation have all true premises and a false conclusion, since there is no situation in which the conclusion is false.
text: According to the definition of truth given previously, if the conclusion is false, its negation is true.
text: As mentioned, an inconsistent counter-example set implies that a conclusion is valid because it means that there is no situation under which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false (the negation of the conclusion is true).
text: Both premises in this argument are true, but the conclusion is false.
text: The premises in this argument are true but clearly, the conclusion is false.
text: If either of these possibilities is true, then both premises could be true, but the conclusion would be false.
text: (1) Formal fallaciousness is simply the case where the conclusion does not follow validly from the premises; this type of error can be demonstrated by producing a suitable analogous counter-example in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
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: 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: Since it is therefore possible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false, the inference is invalid.
text: Beware: To say that an argument is bad does not mean necessarily that the conclusion is false.
text: He or she would readily admit that the premises could be true and the conclusion still be false at the same time, and that the conclusion probably follows from the premises.
text: However, formal logic makes no such guarantee if any premise is false; the conclusion can be either true or false.
text: This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.
text: An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be strong enough that, if the premises were to be true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false.
text: Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.
text: The fact that Tom's argument was fallacious is not, in itself, a proof that his conclusion is false.
text: An inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false.
text: All other arguments are considered to be inductive (or just non-deductive), and these are meant to work because of the actual information in the premises so that if the premises are true the conclusion is not likely to be false.
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: ”, then the premises of the argument are true (since even if \(S\) tried to change the laws or the past, she would not succeed), but the conclusion is false (since determinism is consistent with the truth of counterfactuals like “if \(S\) tried to raise her hand, she would”).
text: It is impossible for the conclusion of a valid argument to be false while its premises are true.
text: The conclusions of such arguments may be either true or false, so they are entirely useless in any effort to gain new information.
text: However, the conclusion is false.
text: Inductive reasoning is a form of argument that—in contrast to deductive reasoning—allows for the possibility that a conclusion can be false, even if all of the premises are true.
text: Not, I hope, on the basis of your belief that the conclusion is true or false.
text: The truth of these premises would entail the truth of the conclusion: if the premises were true the conclusion couldn’t be false.
text: The problem must be in the premises: if the conclusion of a good argument is false, then at least one of its premises must be false.
text: If an argument is deductively valid, and its premises are true, then it is logically impossible for the conclusion to be false.
text: To say that a deductive argument is valid means (2) it is impossible for its premises all to be true while the conclusion is false.
text: 3) it is impossible for the premises all to be true while the conclusion is false.
text: 10) the premises and conclusion are all false
text: 13) the premises are all true but the conclusion is false
text: 14) it is possible for the premises all to be true while the conclusion is false
text: 6) false; the premises of a valid argument can in fact all be false; the conclusion of a valid argument can be false; the only thing required is that if the premises were true, the conclusion could not be false.
text: 13) true; the fact that the premises are all true while the conclusion is false shows that it is indeed possible for the premises all to be true while the conclusion is false.
text: 16) true; if we can do this, then it is possible for the premises all to be true while the conclusion is false.
text: Any deductive argument that is not valid is invalid : it is possible for its conclusion to be false while its premises are true, so even if the premises are true, the conclusion may turn out to be either true or false.
text: The only thing that cannot happen is for a deductive argument to have true premises and a valid inference but a false conclusion.
text: If a strong argument has a false conclusion, then one of its premises must be false.
text: If a valid argument has a false conclusion, then one of its premises must be false.
text: 5) false; a valid argument can have a false conclusion, but that is never sufficient to determine its validity.