MATERIAL OF LOGIC

PRESENTATION

SUBMITTED TO: MADAM FAZIA

 PREMISIS
In discourse, a premise (also "premiss" in British usage) is a claim that is a reason (or
element of a set of reasons) for, or objection against, some other claim. In other words, it
is a statement presumed true within the context of the discourse for the purposes of
arguing to a conclusion. Premises are sometimes stated explicitly by way of
disambiguation or for emphasis, but more often they are left tacitly understood as being
obvious or self-evident ("it goes without saying"), or not conducive to succinct discourse.
For example, in the argument

Socrates is mortal, since all men are

it is evident that a tacitly understood claim is that Socrates is a man. The fully expressed
reasoning is thus:

Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal.

In this example, the first two independent clauses preceding the comma (namely, "all men
are mortal" and "Socrates is a man") are the premises, while "Socrates is mortal" is the
conclusion.

In the context of ordinary argumentation, the rational acceptability of a disputed

conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the soundness of the reasoning
from the premises to the conclusion.

2
 ARGUMENT
An argument is a statement (premise) or group of statements (premises) offered in
support of another statement (conclusion)

Argumentation theory
Argumentation theory, or argumentation, embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate,
dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural
rules in both artificial and real world settings. Argumentation is concerned primarily with
reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based on premises.
Although including debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually
acceptable conclusions, argumentation theory also encompasses the branch of social
debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal. This art and science is
often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue,
in common parlance, and during the process of arguing. Argumentation is used in law,
such as court trials, preparing an argument, and to test the validity of certain kinds of
evidence. And argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which
organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally.

The key components of argumentation

• Understanding and identifying the presentation of an argument, either explicit or
implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.

• Identifying the conclusion and the premises from which the conclusion is derived

• Establishing the "burden of proof" — determining who made the initial claim and
is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance

• For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for
his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The
method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent
arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.

• In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One

must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the
reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to
identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be
derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument

3
Deductive reasoning
Deductive reasoning is the kind of reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated by,
or reached from, previously known facts (the premises). If the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true. This is distinguished from abductive and inductive reasoning,
where the premises may predict a high probability of the conclusion, but do not ensure
that the conclusion is true. For instance, beginning with the premises "sharks are fish"
and "all fish have fins", you may conclude that "sharks have fins".

Deductive reasoning is dependent on its premises. That is, a false premise can possibly
lead to a false result, and inconclusive premises will also yield an inconclusive
conclusion.

Inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning is the complement of deductive reasoning. For other article subjects
named induction, see Induction.

Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of

reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion
but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens
(i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws
based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is used, for
example, in using specific propositions such as:

This ice is cold.

A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue.

...to infer general propositions such as:

All ice is cold.

All billiard balls struck with a cue move.

Inductive reasoning has been attacked several times. Historically, David Hume denied its
logical admissibility. During the 20th century, most notably Karl Popper and David
Miller have disputed the existence, necessity and validity of any inductive reasoning,
even of probabilistic (bayesian) one.

Types of inductive reasoning

Generalization

Statistical syllogism

4
Simple induction

Argument from analogy

Causal inference

Prediction

Argument from authority

Logical argument
In logic, an argument is a set of statements, consisting of a number of premises, a number
of inferences, and a conclusion, which is said to have the following property: if the
premises are true, then the conclusion must be true or highly likely to be true. An
argument is thus an attempt to demonstrate that the truth of the conclusion follows from
the truth of the premises, and the role of the inferences is to illustrate why this connection
exists.

An argument proceeds from premises to inferences to conclusion by employing a

particular form of reasoning. If the reasoning is deductive, then the argument attempts to
show that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. If the reasoning is
inductive, the argument may show only that the conclusion is highly likely to be true if
the premises are true. Other forms of reasoning are also used, with corresponding
variations in the precise sense in which the conclusion follows from the premise.

Validity, soundness and effectiveness

A valid argument is one for which it is the case that if the premises are true then the
conclusion must be true or highly likely to be true. Even if an argument is valid, however,
its conclusion may not be true, because a valid argument need not have true premises. A
sound argument is a valid argument that does have true premises, and is thus an argument
with a conclusion that is true or highly likely to be true.

Clearly it is very desirable to ensure that the arguments we employ in science and other
disciplines are sound. It is, however, very often a matter of debate whether or not
particular arguments are actually sound, often because their validity is in dispute.

5
Arguments can be invalid for a variety of reasons. There are well-established patterns of
reasoning that arguments may follow which render them invalid; these patterns are
known as logical fallacies.

Even if an argument is sound (and hence also valid), an argument may still fail in its
primary task of persuading us of the truth of its conclusion. Such an argument is then
sound, but ineffective. An argument may fail to be effective because it is not
scrutinizable, in the sense that it is not open to public examination. This may be because
the argument is too long or too complex, because the terms occurring in it are obscure, or
because the reasoning it employs is not well understood. The validity and soundness of an
argument are logical properties of it, known as semantic properties. Effectiveness, on the
other hand, is not a logical notion but a practical concern.

Theories of arguments
Theories of arguments are closely related to theories of informal logic. Ideally, a theory
of argument should provide some mechanism for explaining validity of arguments.

One natural approach would follow the mathematical paradigm and attempt to define
validity in terms of semantics of the assertions in the argument. Though such an approach
is appealing in its simplicity, the obstacles to proceeding this way are very difficult for
anything other than purely logical arguments. Among other problems, we need to
interpret not only entire sentences, but also components of sentences, for example noun
phrases such as The present value of government revenue for the next twelve years.

One major difficulty of pursuing this approach is that determining an appropriate

semantic domain is not an easy task, raising numerous thorny ontological issues. It also
raises the discouraging prospect of having to work out acceptable semantic theories
before being able to say anything useful about understanding and evaluating arguments.
For this reason the purely semantic approach is usually replaced with other approaches
that are more easily applicable to practical discourse.

For arguments regarding topics such as probability, economics or physics, some of the
semantic problems can be conveniently shoved under the rug if we can avail ourselves of
a model of the phenomenon under discussion. In this case, we can establish a limited
semantic interpretation using the terms of the model and the validity of the argument is
reduced to that of the abstract model. This kind of reduction is used in the natural
sciences generally, and would be particularly helpful in arguing about social issues if the
parties can agree on a model. Unfortunately, this prior reduction seldom occurs, with the
result that arguments about social policy rarely have a satisfactory resolution.

Another approach is to develop a theory of argument pragmatics, at least in certain cases

where argument and social interaction are closely related. This is most useful when the
goal of logical argument is to establish a mutually satisfactory resolution of a difference
of opinion between individuals.

6
Argumentative dialogue
Arguments as discussed in the preceding paragraphs are static, such as one might find in
a textbook or research article. They serve as a published record of justification for an
assertion. Arguments can also be interactive, in which the proposer and the interlocutor
have a more symmetrical relationship. The premises are discussed, as well the validity of
the intermediate inferences. For example, consider the following exchange, illustrated by
the No true Scotsman fallacy:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Reply: "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

In this dialogue, the proposer first offers a premise, the premise is challenged by the
interlocutor, and finally the proposer offers a modification of the premise. This exchange
could be part of a larger discussion, for example a murder trial, in which the defendant is
a Scotsman, and it had been established earlier that the murderer was eating sugared
porridge when he or she committed the murder.

In argumentative dialogue, the rules of interaction may be negotiated by the parties to the
dialogue, although in many cases the rules are already determined by social mores. In the
most symmetrical case, argumentative dialogue can be regarded as a process of discovery
more than one of justification of a conclusion. Ideally, the goal of argumentative dialogue
is for participants to arrive jointly at a conclusion by mutually accepted inferences. In
some cases however, the validity of the conclusion is secondary. For example; emotional
outlet, scoring points with an audience, wearing down an opponent or lowering the sale
price of an item may instead be the actual goals of the dialogue. Walton distinguishes
several types of argumentative dialogue which illustrate these various goals:

• Personal quarrel.
• Forensic debate.
• Persuasion dialogue.
• Bargaining dialogue.
• Action seeking dialogue.
• Educational dialogue.

Van Eemeren and Grootendorst identify various stages of argumentative dialogue. These
stages can be regarded as an argument protocol. In a somewhat loose interpretation, the
stages are as follows:

• Confrontation: Presentation of the problem, such as a debate question or a

political disagreement
• Opening: Agreement on rules, such as for example, how evidence is to be
presented, which sources of facts are to be used, how to handle divergent
interpretations, determination of closing conditions.

7
 • Argumentation: Application of logical principles according to the agreed-upon
rules
• Closing: This occurs when the termination conditions are met. Among these could
be for example, a time limitation or the determination of an arbiter.

Van Eemeren and Grootendorst provide a detailed list of rules that must be applied at
each stage of the protocol. Moreover, in the account of argumentation given by these
authors, there are specified roles of protagonist and antagonist in the protocol which are
determined by the conditions which set up the need for argument.

Many cases of argument are highly unsymmetrical, although in some sense they are
dialogues. A particularly important case of this is political argument.

Much of the recent work on argument theory has considered argumentation as an integral
part of language and perhaps the most important function of language (Grice, Searle,
Austin, Popper). This tendency has removed argumentation theory away from the realm
of pure formal logic.

One of the original contributors to this trend is the philosopher Chaim Perelman, who
together with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, introduced the French term La nouvelle rhetorique
in 1958 to describe an approach to argument which is not reduced to application of
formal rules of inference. Perelman's view of argumentation is much closer to a juridical
one, in which rules for presenting evidence and rebuttals play an important role. Though
this would apparently invalidate semantic concepts of truth, this approach seems useful in
situations in which the possibility of reasoning within some commonly accepted model
does not exist or this possibility has broken down because of ideological conflict.
Retaining the notion enunciated in the introduction to this article that logic usually refers
to the structure of argument, we can regard the logic of rhetoric as a set of protocols for
argumentation.

Oral argument
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Oral arguments are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer (or the
party when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Oral
argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance the
argument of each party in the legal dispute. Oral arguments can also occur during motion
practice when one of the parties presents a motion to the court for consideration before
trial, such as when the case is to be dismissed on a point of law, or when summary
judgment may lie because there are no factual issues in dispute.

8
Oral argument operates by each party in a case taking turns to speak directly to the judge
or judges with an equal amount of time allotted to each. A party may often reserve part of
their time to be used for rebuttal after their adversary has presented.

Presenting lawyers usually cannot get away with simply making speeches or reading their
briefs when presenting oral argument to an appeal court. Unlike trial court procedure,
where judges intervene only when asked by the parties to resolve objections, it is typical
for judges at the appellate level to be active participants in oral argument, interrupting the
presenting lawyers and asking questions. This is true even of courts that are formed of
panels of multiple judges, such as the United States Supreme Court, where a presenting
lawyer must be prepared to handle questions from any of the nine justices. It is also true
that when a motion is made before or during trial that the lawyers conduct themselves
before the judge in a manner similar to the presentation of the case on appeal, the lawyers
present their arguments to the judge in a more conversational mode; in some pre-trial
proceedings these appearances may not be recorded by court stenographers as they are
invariably recorded in appellate proceedings.

Oral argument is not always considered an essential part of due process, as the briefs also
give the parties an opportunity to be heard by the court. Whether a court will permit,
require, or guarantee the opportunity to present oral argument is usually left up to each
court to decide as part of its rules of procedure, with differences from court to court even
within a single jurisdiction. Some courts may guarantee the right to present oral
argument, either requiring the parties to request to present or their waiver if they do not
wish to, while other courts may require oral argument without the ability to waive it.
Courts may also have the discretion to decide a case without presentation of oral
argument, rendering their judgment entirely based on the arguments set forth in the
parties' briefs.

9
 CONCLUSION
A conclusion is a final proposition, which is arrived at after the consideration of evidence,
arguments or premises.

Research
Scientific Research

In research and experimentation, conclusions are determinations made by studying the

results of preeceding work within some methodology (for example the scientific method).
These often take the form of theories. The conclusion is typically the result of a
discussion of the premises. Without a discussion of the premises, there is no conclusion,
only assertions and without evidence, it is an allegation. Naturally, the accuracy of a
given conclusion is dependent on the truth of the chosen.

Academic Research

A conclusion is the final section of an essay in which the writer ties together what was
presented in the passage, summing up the main point, explaining how the thesis was
proven, and successfully closing the discussion. The conclusion is often the most difficult
part of an essay to write, and many writers feel that they have nothing left to say after
having presented points proving their thesis in the body of the paper. However, the
conclusion is often the part of the paper that a reader remembers best, and thus must be
effective to be strong. This definition also applies more broadly to any progressive
academic or artistic work. Compare with Introduction (essay).

Logic
In a mathematical proof or a syllogism, a conclusion is a statement that is the logical
consequence of preceding statements.

Informal logic
In argument mapping and informal logic a conclusion is given a different order and is
placed at the start of an argument and not at the end.

Creative Writing
Music

10
In music a conclusion is a musical theme which releases musical tension after an initial
build up, this often occurs as a cadence at the very end of a composition.

11