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. So, an inductive argument's success or strength is a matter of degree, unlike with deductive arguments. There is no standard term for a successful inductive argument, but this article uses the term "strong." Inductive arguments that are not strong are said to be weak; there is no sharp line between strong and weak. The argument about the dog biting me would be stronger if we couldn't think of any relevant conditions for why the next time will be different than previous times. The argument also will be stronger the more times there were when I did walk by the dog. The argument will be weaker the fewer times I have walked by the dog. It will be weaker if relevant conditions about the past time will be different next time, such as that in the past the dog has been behind a closed gate, but next time the gate will be open.

Propositional logic, also known as sentential logic and statement logic, is the branch of logic that studies ways of joining and/or modifying entire propositions, statements or sentences to form more complicated propositions, statements or sentences, as well as the logical relationships and properties that are derived from these methods of combining or altering statements. In propositional logic, the simplest statements are considered as indivisible units, and hence, propositional logic does not study those logical properties and relations that depend upon parts of statements that are not themselves statements on their own, such as the subject and predicate of a statement. The most thoroughly researched branch of propositional logic is classical truth-functional propositional logic, which studies logical operators and connectives that are used to produce complex statements whose truth-value depends entirely on the truth-values of the simpler statements making them up, and in which it is assumed that every statement is either true or false and not both. However, there are other forms of propositional logic in which other truth-values are considered, or in which there is consideration of connectives that are used to produce statements whose truth-values depend not simply on the truth-values of the parts, but additional things such as their necessity, possibility or relatedness to one another.

a connected series of sentences or statements or propositions, where some of these sentences or statements or propositions or premises and one of them is the conclusion and the one's that are premises are intended to provide some kind of reason for the one that's the conclusion

arguments are trying to put statements into a certain structure that reflects the order of reasoning in order to establish the proposition

Persuading or Convincing (bring about an effect)

• Can be good or bad reasons for a certain conclusion

Provide a justification

• Provide good reasons for a certain conclusion

the action or fact of persuading someone or of being persuaded to do or believe something.

Persuade:

cause (someone) to believe something, especially after a sustained effort; convince.

To persuade or convince someone is to make that person believe, so the argument persuades the audience only if it makes the audience believe the conclusion.

• Tilde “~” is negation (e.g., ~P = it is not the case that P).
• Logical Conjunction “Λ” is “and” (e.g., P Λ Q = P and Q).
• Logical Disjunction “ν” is “or” (e.g., P ν Q = P or Q).
• Conditional “→” is “if…then” (e.g., P→Q = If P, then Q).
• Biconditional “↔” is “if and only if” (e.g., P↔Q = P if and only if Q).
• Universal Quantifier “∀” is “all” (e.g., ∀xFx = For each x, x is F).
• Existential Quantifier “∃” is “some” (e.g., ∃xFx = There is an x such that x is F).
• Parentheses “()” provide syntax for multiple levels of structure (e.g., P→(Q→R) = If P, then “if Q, then R”).
• Ergo “∴” is “therefore” (e.g., P ∴ P = P therefore P).

• Premise Markers: since, because, given that, assuming that.
• Conclusion Markers: so, thus, therefore, ergo.
• Connectives: and, or, but, unless.
• Negation: it is not the case, no.
• Evaluative Terms: good, bad, beautiful, ugly, right, wrong.
• Guarding Terms: some, perhaps, a few, at least, maybe.
• Assuring Terms: I know; I believe; [insert credentials]; [insert authority]
• Abusive Terms: only a [insert negative term] would think x.

Yes.

You can persuade someone with a bad argument, but a bad argument will not explain why the conclusion is true.

Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first.

Aristotliean Agent Cause: Aristotle defines the agent or efficient "cause" of an object as that which causes change and motion to start or stop. In many cases, this is simply the thing that brings something about.

Teleology is the philosophical attempt to describe things in terms of their apparent purpose, directive principle, or goal. A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as that of a fork, is called extrinsic.

AKA the end, purpose, or final cause (that for the sake of which a thing is done)

• Language is important
• Language is conventional
• Language is representational
• Language is social

Representational:

Language cannot change the facts of the world.

Social:

Utilizing conventions allow communication among people.

Linguistics is the study of language - how it is put together and how it functions. Various building blocks of different types and sizes are combined to make up a language. Sounds are brought together and sometimes when this happens, they change their form and do interesting things. Words are arranged in a certain order, and sometimes the beginnings and endings of the words are changed to adjust the meaning. Then the meaning itself can be affected by the arrangement of words and by the knowledge of the speaker about what the hearer will understand. Linguistics is the study of all of this. There are various branches of linguistics which are given their own name, some of which are described below. Linguists are people who study linguistics.

One common sense theory is that expressions have meanings because they stand for things: they mean what they stand for. Words are like labels. “Charlie Chaplin” denotes the person Charlie Chaplin. The word “cat” stands for a member of Felis catus. And the sentence “Charlie Chaplin kicked a cat” stands for Charlie Chaplin having kicked a cat, presumably because “Charlie Chaplin” denotes the person Charlie Chaplin, “kicked” stands for the act of kicking in the past, and “a cat” refers to a member of Felis catus.

This Referential Theory of Meaning is attractively simple, but it has some problems.

• Linguistic Act - producing meaningful utterance
• Speech Act - Advising, even if not persuasive
• Conversational Act - Persuasion

the addition of information can change the strength of the argument

• Deductive arguments are indefeasible, Only Inductive arguments are defeasible.

• Maxim of Quantity
• Maxim of Quality
• Maxim of Relation
• Maxim of Manner

As the maxims stand, there may be an overlap, as regards the length of what one says, between the maxims of quantity and manner; this overlap can be explained (partially if not entirely) by thinking of the maxim of quantity (artificial though this approach may be) in terms of units of information. In other words, if the listener needs, let us say, five units of information from the speaker, but gets less, or more than the expected number, then the speaker is breaking the maxim of quantity. However, if the speaker gives the five required units of information, but is either too curt or long-winded in conveying them to the listener, then the maxim of manner is broken. The dividing line however, may be rather thin or unclear, and there are times when we may say that both the maxims of quantity and quality are broken by the same factors.

In social science generally and linguistics specifically, the cooperative principle describes how effective communication in conversation is achieved in common social situations, that is, how listeners and speakers must act cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way. As phrased by Paul Grice, who introduced it, "Make your contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged." Though phrased as a prescriptive command, the principle is intended as a description of how people normally behave in conversation. Jeffries and McIntyre describe Grice's maxims as "encapsulating the assumptions that we prototypically hold when we engage in conversation".