Term
|
Definition
| Assumptions about what is true and factual that are sometimes stated ans sometimes implied; these assumptions are often taken for granted. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The process of finding truth by making observations; these observations may be from statistical polling, controlled experiments , or relevant examples and analogies. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The process of inferring a conclusion by putting forth true premises in a valid format. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An argument that followers formal patterns of reasoning and is aimed at establishing the certainly of conclusion through presenting true premises in valid form |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An argument structured in a correct deductive format; an argument structured in such away that if its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A valid deductive argument whose premises are true |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A deductive argument usually consisting of two premises and a conclusion |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The statement in a syllogism that sets forth general principle. (The major premises contains the term that is predicate of the conclusion.) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The statement in a syllogism that expresses am instance of principle set out in the major premises.( The minor premises contains the term that is the subject of the conclusion.) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
In deductive reasoning,the inference
drawn from the major and minor premises of a syllogism. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A statement in which members of one class are said to be included in another class. This statement may be
used as the major premise of a syllogism. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
In deductive reasoning, a syllogism whose major premise asserts that if the condition cited in the first part of a
statement is true, then the claim cited in the second part of the statement will follow. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A valid conditional/hypothetical syllogism in which the antecedent is
affirmed. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A syllogism in which the major
premise presents a condition (“if A, then B”) or a possibility (“either A or B”) that is resolved in the minor premise so that a valid conclusion
can follow. The condition or possibility is resolved in the minor premise in the form of affirmation or denial. Conditional and disjunctive
syllogisms are forms of hypothetical
syllogisms. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A valid conditional/hypothetical
syllogism in which the consequent is denied. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A form of argument that builds and depends on a series of conditions being met. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A hypothetical syllogism in which two possibilities are given in the major premise and one is assumed to be necessarily true. In the minor premise, one of the possible alternatives is negated, and the remaining alternative is then affirmed in the conclusion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A valid syllogism that seeks to logically rule out various possibilities until only a single
possibility remains. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A syllogism with a key part or parts implied rather than directly stated. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Evidence offered to prove a claim. Grounds can consist of statistics, examples, research, physical evidence, logical reasoning, and expert opinion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Classifying people, places, or things solely on common traits while ignoring individual differences that make these comparisons invalid. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The premise of a deductive argument that is under dispute. This is also often called the contentious premise. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (often called inductive reasoning) The process of drawing generalizations from known facts or research to give strength and support to conclusions. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Data collected by polling and research studies that can be used to make statistical generalizations. |
|
|
Term
| Statistical Generalizations |
|
Definition
| Inferences drawn from statistical evidence that are used to give strength to inductive arguments. |
|
|
Term
| Characteristic of Interest |
|
Definition
| The specific question that a researcher seeks to answer concerning a given population. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The group about which a researcher wishes to generalize. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Members of the target population who are studied by a researcher. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A quality of a research sample in which the sample has the same significant characteristics in the same proportion as the target population. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A sample that does not reflect a random,
representative population. A biased sample does not provide adequate evidence to support a conclusion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A condition that allows every member of a target population to have an equal chance of being chosen as part of the sample. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Generalizations based on causal factors; that is, they state that a particular factor is responsible for a specific effect. These generalizations are used to strengthen inductive arguments. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A condition (state of affairs, thing, process) that must be present if a particular effect is present. Equivalently, if the necessary condition is absent, then the effect cannot occur. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A condition (state of affairs, thing, process) that automatically leads to the production of another event. If the condition is present, then the effect will definitely occur. The sufficient condition creates or causes the effect. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A combination of causes that are presumed to lead to a specific effect. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A causal factor that immediately precedes the effect. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Factors or conditions that led up to but did not immediately precede the effect. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A theory of causation postulating that the cause of an effect is found by noting that X is the only factor always present when Y (the problem or the good effect) occurs; therefore, X causes Y. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A theory of causation postulating that the cause of an effect is found by noting that the only difference between the event or effect(called Y)happening or not happening is whether one element—X—is present. |
|
|
