0
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING IS A VALID FORM OF EVIDENCE OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING?
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
A valid deduction is that you posted the question without checking what it said!
The question asks about the "following". In those circumstances would it be too much to expect that you make sure that there is something that is following?
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why do you do proofs in geometry?
You start out with things that you know and use them to make logical arguments about what you want to prove. The things you know may be axioms, or may be things you already proved and can use. The practice of doing Geometry proofs inspires logical thinking, organization, and reasoning based on facts. Each statement must be supported with a valid reason, which could be a given fact, definitions, postulates, or theorems.
Euclids geometry has been questioned but never has a nonEuclidean geometry been accepted as a valid possibility?
false
Euclid's geometry has been questioned but never has a non-Euclidean geometry been accepted as a valid possibility?
False
How do you determine if the points on a graph are invalid?
Plug the x-values into the original equation. If you get the same y-values, then the points are valid.
Convert cubic yard to square feet area?
This is not a valid conversion. Cubic units is a measure of volume while square units is a measure of area.
Is a valid form of evidence in deductive reasoning?
The valid form of evidence in deductive reasoning helps you come with an informed decision based on the evidence presented.
Which is a valid form of evidence in deductive reasoning?
The valid form of evidence in deductive reasoning helps you come with an informed decision based on the evidence presented.
Is theorems a form of valid evidence in deductive reasoning?
Yes, theorems - once they have been proved - are valid evidence.
What type of reasoning does a mathematical proof use?
Deductive reasoning In mathematics, a proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement. Deductive reasoning, unlike inductive reasoning, is a valid form of proof. It is, in fact, the way in which geometric proofs are written.
What is a reasonable argument?
A "reasoned argument" is a series of statements that use evidence and reasoning to persuade someone to accept or reject a particular opinion. A special case of a reasoned argument is the valid deductive argument. If you accept the premises of a valid deductive argument, then it would be absurd to reject its conclusion. Unfortunately, in many cases it is impossible to put together a valid deductive argument either for or against some important statement. And so we must muddle along with whatever weaker evidence and weaker reasoning we have available to form a reasoned argument and come to some useful opinion one way or the other. Unfortunately, too many people make statements without any evidence or reasoning at all.
Valid in a sentence?
His argument was valid because it was supported by strong evidence and logical reasoning.
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.
What is sound reasoning in mathematics?
Sound reasoning is correct, valid, logical, believable reasoning.
What will the The truth table for a valid deductive argument show?
that the premises are false.
How do you know if a conclusion is valid?
You can probably never be entirely sure, but if you know about the subject, and use correct methods, you improve your chances of reaching a correct conclusion. For important conclusions, you may want to have your reasoning checked by other people.-------------List all the assumptions and use logic decuctive reasoning to see if it is valid. Deductive reasoning is a fixed set of rules how certain conclusions can follow from assumpions. Wikipedia example:All men are mortalSocrates is a manTherefore, Socrates is mortal
What is the purpose of using the deductive approach?
The deductive approach to reasoning generally starts with a development of a theory of what an answer might be to a given problem. Then the researcher goes about his research to determine if the theory was valid. If not, then he develops a new theory based on his research and assesses it for validity. This process is often considered "top-down" since it always begins with formulation of a theory or hypothesis that is then studied for validity.
What counts as 'evidence' in evidential apologetics?
The evidence used in evidential apologetics is supposed to be evidence both the believer and nonbeliever share, and does not presuppose God's existence. It seems that the nonbeliever is still expected to believe in the truth of the Bible and that because the Bible is 'true', the 'evidence' in the Bible is valid. As opposed to classical apologetics, there is less reliance on extra-biblical reasoning.
