# Argument

**argumentslogical argumentproofphilosophical argumentargument by analogyarguearguingarguedargument-by-analogyargumentative**

In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion.wikipedia

405 Related Articles

### Logic

**logicianlogicallogics**

In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion.

Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an important branch of informal logic. Since much informal argument is not strictly speaking deductive, on some conceptions of logic, informal logic is not logic at all. See 'Rival conceptions', below.

### Reason

**reasoningratiocinationhuman reason**

Logic is the study of the forms of reasoning in arguments and the development of standards and criteria to evaluate arguments.

The philosophical field of logic studies ways in which humans reason formally through argument.

### Transcendental arguments

**transcendentaltranscendental argumentTranscendental" arguments**

The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth—for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments, the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting.

A transcendental argument is a deductive philosophical argument which takes a manifest feature of experience as granted, and articulates which must be the case so that experience as such is possible.

### World disclosure

**disclosurealways already situated in a worlddisclose**

The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth—for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments, the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting.

Some philosophers, such as Ian Hacking and Nikolas Kompridis, have also described how this ontological understanding can be re-disclosed in various ways (including through innovative forms of philosophical argument).

### Logical consequence

**entailsentailmentfollows from**

Informal logic may be said to emphasize the study of argumentation, whereas formal logic emphasizes implication and inference.

A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises.

### Syllogism

**syllogisticcategorical syllogismsyllogisms**

(See also, existential import).

A syllogism ( syllogismos, "conclusion, inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

### Corresponding conditional

For each argument form, there is a corresponding statement form, called a corresponding conditional, and an argument form is valid if and only if its corresponding conditional is a logical truth.

In logic, the corresponding conditional of an argument (or derivation) is a material conditional whose antecedent is the conjunction of the argument's (or derivation's) premises and whose consequent is the argument's conclusion.

### Logical form

**argument formschemaargument structure**

The logical form of an argument in a natural language can be represented in a symbolic formal language, and independently of natural language formally defined "arguments" can be made in math and computer science.

The logical form of an argument is called the argument form or test form of the argument.

### Formal fallacy

**logical fallacynon sequiturlogical fallacies**

(See also, formal fallacy and informal fallacy).

It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid.

### Deductive reasoning

**deductiondeductivedeductive logic**

Deductive arguments can be valid or sound: in a valid argument, 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. Cogency can be considered inductive logic's analogue to deductive logic's "soundness."

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, logical deduction is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.

### Analogy

**analogousanalogiesanalogical**

Argument by analogy may be thought of as argument from the particular to particular.

In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, in which at least one of the premises, or the conclusion, is general rather than particular in nature.

### Rhetoric

**rhetoricianrhetoricalrhetor**

Arguments and explanations largely resemble each other in rhetorical use.

Rhetoric typically provides heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations, such as Aristotle's three persuasive audience appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos.

### Argument map

**argument mappingAIFunstated assumption**

Argument map

In informal logic and philosophy, an argument map or argument diagram is a visual representation of the structure of an argument.

### Counterargument

**counterargumentsrebuttalcounter argument**

In informal logic this is called a counter argument.

The attempt to rebut an argument may involve generating a counterargument or finding a counterexample.

### Belief bias

**regardedthinking prior**

Belief bias

Belief bias is the tendency to judge the strength of arguments based on the plausibility of their conclusion rather than how strongly they support that conclusion.

### Fallacy

**informal fallacyfallaciesSophists**

(See also, formal fallacy and informal fallacy).

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument.

### Inductive reasoning

**inductioninductiveinductive logic**

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. Cogency can be considered inductive logic's analogue to deductive logic's "soundness."

Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below).

### Validity (logic)

**validityvalidinvalid**

Validity

In logic, 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.

### Logical reasoning

**cogentlogicalcogence**

Cogency can be considered inductive logic's analogue to deductive logic's "soundness."

Argument

### Practical arguments

Practical arguments

See argument for uses and general information.

### Chaïm Perelman

**Ch. PerelmanChaim Perelman**

Ch. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, Notre Dame, 1970. This classic was originally published in French in 1958.

Undertaken in the spirit of Fregian observation and synthesis, the work analyzed a wide range of actual arguments from the realms of philosophy, law, politics, ethics, and journalism.

### Defeasible reasoning

**defeasiblecorrigibilityDefeasance clause**

This type of reasoning is referred to as defeasible reasoning.

Argument (logic)

### Attacking Faulty Reasoning

T. Edward Damer. Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 5th Edition, Wadsworth, 2005. ISBN: 0-534-60516-8

The organization of the fallacies comes from the author’s own fallacy theory, which defines a fallacy as a violation of one of the five criteria of a good argument:

### Ronald Loui

Carlos Chesñevar, Ana Maguitman and Ronald Loui, Logical Models of Argument, ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 32, num. 4, pp. 337–383, 2000.

Loui was a leading advocate of defeasible reasoning in artificial intelligence (see also argument and argumentation theory) and a leading proponent of scripting languages.

### Argumentation theory

**argumentationArgumentation theoristlegal argument**

Informal logic may be said to emphasize the study of argumentation, whereas formal logic emphasizes implication and inference.

Argument