Want this question answered?
begging the question.
Given a proposition X, a regular proof known facts and logical arguments to show that X must be true. For an indirect proof, you assume that the negation of X is true. You then use known facts and logical arguments to show that this leads to a contradiction. The conclusion then is that the assumption about ~X being true is false and that is equivalent to showing that X is true.
Look at the way in which person can analyse information and draw logical conclusion.
A scientific conclusion should be based on evidence and data analysis. It should also be objective, drawing logical inferences from the results obtained rather than being influenced by personal biases or opinions.
Follwed steps in the truth if evidence as in investigation.
A deduction based on evidence is a logical conclusion drawn from observing facts, data, or information. It involves using reason and logical thinking to arrive at a specific conclusion that is supported by the available evidence. Deductions often follow a "if-then" format, where a premise leads to a definite conclusion.
A warranted assumption is an assumption that is supported by evidence or justification, making it reasonable or valid to accept as true for the purpose of an argument or discussion. It is based on logical reasoning or empirical observations.
The verb to conclude has two separate meanings : to end, or to make a logical assumption. A concluding act (conclusion) is the final step in a series of activities. Individuals may be concluding that a given situation exists based on the observed evidence.
An educated guess is a hypothesis or prediction based on prior knowledge, reasoning, or evidence, rather than random speculation. It involves making an informed estimate or assumption using available information to arrive at a logical conclusion.
Therefore is an adverb it shows a consequence, a result
A logical interpretation based on observation is a conclusion drawn from facts or evidence that aligns with reasoning and common sense. It relies on the information gathered through observation to draw a valid and sound conclusion that is supported by a logical process of thinking.
A circular argument is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is supported by the premise, which in turn is based on the conclusion. It does not provide any new information or evidence to support the argument. It's a form of reasoning that goes in a circle without ever reaching a logical conclusion.
1. Facts 2. reasons 3. evidence
A deductive argument is a logical reasoning process where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. It is a form of reasoning that aims to provide logically conclusive evidence for the conclusion.
The symbol for "therefore" ( ∴ ) originated from ancient Greek philosophers, particularly used by Aristotle. It was later adopted in mathematical and logical discourse as a way to signify logical consequence or conclusion. It signifies a logical inference or deduction from the preceding statements.
The two parts of a logical argument are the premise (or premises) and the conclusion. The premise is the part of an argument that visibly have evidence or logical steps to reach a conclusion. A conclusion is the result of the reasoning in the premise.
An inference is a conclusion drawn from evidence. The logical connection is clear. An opinion need not be based on evidence, or if it is, may not flow from it logically.