Logic Quiz 2
truth preseving
A characteristic of a valid deductive argument in which the logical structure guarantees the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true.
syllogism
A deductive argument made up of 3 statements; two premises and a conclusion.
invalid argument
A deductive argument that fails to provide conclusive support for its conclusion.
valid argument
A deductive argument that succeeds in providing conclusive support for its conclusions
sound argument
A deductively valid argument that has true premises.
dependent premise
A premise that depends on at least one other premise to provide joint support to a conclusion.
independent premise
A premise that does not depend in other premises to provide support to a conclusion. If this premise is removed the support that other premies supply to the conclusion is not affected.
cogent argument
A strong inductive argument with all true premises.
disjunctive syllogism
A valid argument form. Either p or q. (not p or q) Not p, therefore, q.
denying the consequent (modus tollens)
A valid argument form. If p, then q. Not q. Therefore, not p.
affirming the antecedent (modus ponens)
A valid argument form: If p, then q. p. Therefore q.
hypothetical syllogism
A valid argument made up of 3 conditional statements. If p then q. If q then r. Therefore, if p then r.
inductive argument
An argument in which the premises are intended to provide probable, not conclusive, support for its conclusion based on those premises.
deductive argument
An argument intended to provide logically conclusive support for it's conclusion.
weak arguments
An inductive argument that fails to provide strong support for its conclusion.
strong argument
An inductive argument that succeeds in providing probable (but not conclusive) support for its conclusions.
affirming the consequent
An invalid argument form. If p then q. q. Therefore, p.
denying the antecedent
An invalid argument form: If p, then q. Not P. Therefore, not q.
affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent
Invalid argument forms
expert
Someone who is more knowledgeable in a particular subject area or field than most others are.
gambler's fallacy
The error of thinking that previous events can affect the probabilities in the random event at hands
appeal to authority
The fallacy of relying on the opinion of someone deemed to be an expert who in fact is NOT and expert
antecedent
The first part of a conditional statement, the component that begins with the word "if."
background information
The large collection of very well supported beliefs that we all rely on to inform our actions and choices.
consequent
The second statement in a conditional premise (then)
affirming the antecedent, denying the consequent, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism
Valid argument forms
