Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
310 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
TBA
|
TBA
|
|
A categorical proposition having the form “All S are P”
|
A proposition
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when a general rule is wrongly applied to an atypical specific case
|
Accident
|
|
A variety of the argument-against-the-person fallacy that occurs when an arguer verbally abuses a second arguer for the purpose of discrediting that person’s argument
|
Ad hominem abusive
|
|
A variety of the argument-against-the-person fallacy that occurs when an arguer cites circumstances that affect a second arguer, for the purpose of discrediting that person’s argument
|
Ad hominem circumstantial
|
|
A valid rule of inference: “p // p or q” with relational predicates
|
Addition
|
|
The extent to which a hypothesis fits the facts it is intended to explain
|
Adequacy
|
|
A proposition/statement that asserts class membership
|
Affirmative proposition/statement
|
|
An invalid argument form: “If p then q / q // p”
|
Affirming the consequent
|
|
An expression that can be interpreted as having more than one distinct meaning in a given context
|
Ambiguous expression
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends discrediting that person’s argument
|
Amphiboly
|
|
A valid rule of inference: “p // p or q” with relational predicates
|
Addition
|
|
The extent to which a hypothesis fits the facts it is intended to explain
|
Adequacy
|
|
A proposition/statement that asserts class membership
|
Affirmative proposition/statement
|
|
An invalid argument form: “If p then q / q // p”
|
Affirming the consequent
|
|
An expression that can be interpreted as having more than one distinct meaning in a given context
|
Ambiguous expression
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the misinterpretation of a statement that is ambiguous owing to some structural defect
|
Amphiboly
|
|
(1) The component of a conditional statement immediately following the word “if,”; (2) the component of a conditional statement to the left of the horseshoe
|
Antecedent
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when an arguer threatens a reader or listener for the purpose of getting him or her to accept a conclusion
|
Appeal to force
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when an arguer uses the fact that nothing has been proved about something, as evidence in support of some conclusion about that thing
|
Appeal to ignorance
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when an arguer attempts to evoke pity from a reader or listener for the purpose of getting him or her to accept a conclusion
|
Appeal to pity
|
|
A variety of the appeal-to-the-people fallacy that occurs when the arguer plays on the reader’s or listener’s need to feel superior
|
Appeal to snobbery
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when an ararguer plays on certain psychological needs for the purpose of getting the reader or listener to accept a conclusion
|
Appeal to the people
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when an arguer cites the testimony of an unqualified authority in support of a conclusion
|
Appeal to unqualified authority
|
|
A variety of the appeal-to-the-people fallacy that occurs when an arguer plays on the vanity of the reader or listener
|
Appeal to vanity
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when an arguer verbally attacks the person of a second arguer for the purpose of discrediting his or her argument
|
Argument against the person
|
|
A deductive argument in which the conclusion depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement
|
Argument based on mathematics
|
|
An inductive argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a sign to a claim about the thing or situation that the sign symbolizes
|
Argument based on signs
|
|
An inductive argument that depends on the existence of a similarity between two things or states of affairs
|
Argument from analogy
|
|
An inductive argument in which the conclusion rests on a statement made by some presumed authority or witness
|
Argument from authority
|
|
A deductive argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely on the definition of some word or phrase used in the premise or conclusion
|
Argument from definition
|
|
An argument that purports to prove something by giving one or more examples of it
|
Argument from example
|
|
A valid rule of inference that allows for the relocation of parentheses in conjunctions and disjunctions
|
Associativity
|
|
An axiom that states that logically equivalent expressions may replace one another in a proof sequence
|
Axiom of replacement
|
|
A variety of the appeal-to-the-people fallacy that occurs when the arguer plays on the reader’s or listener’s need to feel part of a group
|
Bandwagon argument
|
|
A valid rule of inference that allows for the relocation of parentheses in conjunctions and disjunctions
|
Associativity
|
|
An axiom that states that logically equivalent expressions may replace one another in a proof sequence
|
Axiom of replacement
|
|
A variety of the appeal-to-the-people fallacy that occurs when the arguer plays on the reader’s or listener’s need to feel part of a group
|
Bandwagon argument
|
|
In probability theory, a rule for evaluating the conditional probability of two or more mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive events
|
Bayes’s theorem
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion—by leaving out a key premise, by restating the conclusion as a premise, or by reasoning in a circle
|
Begging the question
|
|
A sample that is not representative of the population from which it was selected
|
Biased sample
|
|
A statement having a triple bar as its main operator comparison of with ordinary language; relating logically equivalent statements, subjunctive; truth-functional definition of
|
Biconditional statement (biconditional)
|
|
A variable that is bound by a quantifier
|
Bound variable
|
|
A proposition that relates two classes (or categories); letter names of; standard form of
|
Categorical proposition
|
|
An inductive inference that proceeds from knowledge of a cause to a claim about an effect, or from knowledge of an effect to a claim about a cause
|
Causal inference
|
|
A rule of inference that allows one kind of quantifier to be replaced by another, provided that certain negation signs are deleted or introduced with overlapping quantifiers
|
Change of quantifier rule
|
|
The theory according to which probabilities are computed a priori by dividing the number of favorable outcomes by the number of possible outcomes
|
Classical theory of probability
|
|
An inductive argument that is strong, has all true premises, and meets the total evidence requirement
|
Cogent argument
|
|
The meaning by which terminology conveys information
|
Cognitive meaning
|
|
An attribute is predicated collectively when it is assigned to a class as a whole
|
Collective predication
|
|
A valid rule of inference that provides for the rearrangement of conjunctions and disjunctions
|
Commutativity
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when a single question that is really two or more questions is asked, and a single answer is applied to both questions
|
Complex question
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole
|
Composition
|
|
A statement that contains at least one simple statement as a component; truth values of
|
Compound statement
|
|
The statement in an argument that the premises are claimed to support or imply; tautologous
|
Conclusion
|
|
A word that provides a clue to identifying a conclusion
|
Conclusion indicator
|
|
A method of proof that consists of assuming the antecedent of a required conditional statement on the first line of an indented sequence, deriving the consequent provides for the rearrangement of conjunctions and disjunctions
|
Conditional proof
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when a single question that is really two or more questions is asked, and a single answer is applied to both questions
|
Complex question
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole
|
Composition
|
|
A statement that contains at least one simple statement as a component; truth values of
|
Compound statement
|
|
The statement in an argument that the premises are claimed to support or imply; tautologous
|
Conclusion
|
|
A word that provides a clue to identifying a conclusion
|
Conclusion indicator
|
|
Valid from the Aristotelian standpoint on condition that the subject term of the premise (or premises) denotes actually existing things conditionally valid inferences; conditionally valid syllogistic forms, conditionally valid syllogisms
|
Conditionally valid
|
|
The component in a conjunctive statement on either side of the main operator. Conjunction: (1) A statement having a dot as its main operator; (2) a valid rule of inference: “p / q // p and q”; truth-functional definition of
|
Conjunct
|
|
A statement having a dot as its main operator
|
Conjunctive statement (conjunction)
|
|
Symbols used to connect or negate propositions in propositional logic
|
Connectives
|
|
Intensional meaning or intension conventional
|
Connotation
|
|
(1) The component of a conditional statement immediately following the word “then“; the component of a conditional statement that is not the antecedent; (2) the component of a conditional statement to the right of the horseshoe
|
Consequent
|
|
Statements for which there is at least one line on their truth tables in which all of them are true
|
Consistent statements
|
|
A valid argument form/rule of inference: “If p then q, and if r then s / p or r // q or s”; refuting
|
Constructive dilemma
|
|
A statement that is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false
|
Contingent statement
|
|
The relation that exists between statements that necessarily have opposite truth values
|
Contradictory relation
|
|
Statements that necessarily have opposite truth values
|
Contradictory statements
|
|
An operation that consists in switching the subject and predicate terms in a standard-form categorical proposition and replacing each with its term complement; to reduce number of terms in a syllogism
|
Contraposition
|
|
The relation that exists between two statements that are necessarily not both true
|
Contrary relation
|
|
The intensional meaning conventionally agreed on by the members of the community who speak the language in question
|
Controlled experimentsConventional connotation
|
|
An operation that consists in switching the subject and predicate terms in a standard-form categorical proposition; to reduce number of terms in a syllogism
|
Conversion
|
|
In standard-form categorical propositions, the words “are” and “are not”
|
Copula
|
|
The conditional statement having the conjunction of an argument’s premises as its antecedent and the conclusion as its consequent
|
Corresponding conditional
|
|
A method for proving invalidity; consists in constructing a substitution instance having true premises and false members of the community who speak the language in question
|
Counterexample method
|
|
An operation that consists in switching the subject and predicate terms in a standard-form categorical proposition; to reduce number of terms in a syllogism
|
Conversion
|
|
In standard-form categorical propositions, the words “are” and “are not”
|
Copula
|
|
The conditional statement having the conjunction of an argument’s premises as its antecedent and the conclusion as its consequent
|
Corresponding conditional
|
|
A method for proving invalidity; consists in constructing a substitution instance having true premises and false conclusion; in predicate logic
|
Counterexample method
|
|
The order of decreasing class size
|
Decreasing extension
|
|
The order of decreasing specificity or increasing generality
|
Decreasing intension
|
|
An argument incorporating the claim that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true; invalid; sound; valid
|
Deductive argument
|
|
In a definition, the word or group of words that are proposed to be defined
|
Definiendum
|
|
In a definition, the word or group of words that do the defining
|
Definiens
|
|
A definition that assigns a meaning to a term by identifying a genus term and one or more difference words that, when combined, convey the same meaning as the term being defined
|
Definition by genus and difference
|
|
A definition that assigns a meaning to a term by naming subclasses of the class that the term denotes
|
Definition by subclass
|
|
A definition that assigns a meaning to a word by pointing to members of the class that the word denotes
|
Demonstrative (ostensive) definition
|
|
A definition that assigns a meaning to a term by identifying a genus term and one or more difference words that, when combined, convey the same meaning as the term being defined
|
Definition by genus and difference
|
|
A definition that assigns a meaning to a term by naming subclasses of the class that the term denotes
|
Definition by subclass
|
|
A definition that assigns a meaning to a word by pointing to members of the class that the word denotes
|
Demonstrative (ostensive) definition
|
|
A valid rule of inference that allows tildes to be moved inside and outside of parentheses
|
De Morgan’s rule
|
|
Extensional meaning or extension
|
Denotation
|
|
An invalid argument form: “If p then q / not p // not q”
|
Denying the antecedent
|
|
A valid argument form/rule of inference: “If p then q, and if r then s / not q or not s // not p or not r” refuting
|
Destructive dilemma
|
|
The component in a disjunctive statement on either side of the main operator
|
Disjunct
|
|
A statement having a wedge as its main operator; comparison of disjunction with ordinary language; exclusive inclusive; truth-functional definition of
|
Disjunctive statement (disjunction)
|
|
(1) A syllogism having a disjunctive statement for one or both of its premises; (2) a valid argument form/rule of inference: “p or q / not p // q”
|
Disjunctive syllogism
|
|
In statistics, an indicator of how spread out the data are in regard to numerical value
|
Dispersion
|
|
An attribute is predicated distributively when it is assigned to each and every member of a class
|
Distributive predication
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or class) onto its parts (or members)
|
Division
|
|
The metalogical symbol that designates logical equivalence
|
Double colon
|
|
A valid rule of inference that allows the introduction or deletion of pairs of negation signs
|
Double negation
|
|
A formal fallacy that occurs in a categorical syllogism when an affirmative conclusion is drawn from a negative premise or a negative conclusion is drawn from affirmative premises
|
Drawing an affirmative/negative conclusion from negative/affirmative premises
|
|
A categorical proposition having the form “No S are P”
|
E proposition
|
|
The meaning by which terminology expresses or evokes feelings
|
Emotive meaning
|
|
Hypotheses that concern the production of some thing or the occurrence of some event that can be observed
|
Empirical hypotheses
|
|
The extension of a term that denotes something that does not exist the null class
|
Empty extension
|
|
A categorical syllogism that is missing a premise or conclusion an argument that is missing a premise or conclusion
|
Enthymeme
|
|
A definition that assigns a meaning to a word by naming the members of the class that the word denotes
|
Enumerative definition
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs because some word or group of words is used either implicitly or explicitly in two different senses; division and
|
Equivocation
|
|
A definition that assigns a meaning to a word by disclosing the word’s ancestry in both its own language and other languages
|
Etymological definition
|
|
A formal fallacy that occurs when both premises of a categorical syllogism are negative
|
Exclusive premises
|
|
(1) A fallacy that occurs whenever an argument is invalid merely because the premises lack existential import
|
Existential fallacy
|
|
A rule of inference that introduces existential quantifiers; improper or invalid applications of Existential import
|
Existential generalization
|
|
A rule of inference that removes existential quantifiers; invalid applications of; restrictions on
|
Existential instantiation
|
|
The quantifier used to translate particular statements in predicate logic
|
Existential quantifier
|
|
The component of an explanation that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained
|
Explanandum
|
|
The component of an explanation that explains the event or phenomenon indicated by the explanandum
|
Explanans
|
|
An expression that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon
|
Explanation
|
|
A valid rule of inference that allows conditional statements having conjunctive antecedents to be replaced with conditional statements having conditional consequents, and vice versa
|
Exportation
|
|
A kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one or more sentences that develop the topic sentence
|
Expository passage
|
|
A definition that assigns a meaning to a term by indicating the members of the class that the term denotes
|
Extensional (denotative) definition
|
|
The members of the class that a term denotes empty
|
Extensional meaning (extension)
|
|
The extent to which a hypothesis agrees with other, well-confirmed hypotheses
|
External consistency
|
|
A claim that something is true a claim that evidence or reasons are being presented
|
Factual claim
|
|
A group of informal fallacies that occur because of an ambiguity in the premises or conclusion
|
Fallacies of ambiguity
|
|
A group of informal fallacies that occur because of a grammatical similarity to other arguments that are nonfallacious
|
Fallacies of grammatical analogy
|
|
A group of informal fallacies that occur when the premises of an argument presume what they purport to prove
|
Fallacies of presumption
|
|
A group of informal fallacies that occur because the premises of an argument are irrelevant to the conclusion
|
Fallacies of relevance
|
|
A group of informal fallacies that occur because the connection between the premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion
|
Fallacies of weak induction
|
|
A defect in an argument arising from some source other than merely false premises. See also Fallacies (of various kinds); Formal fallacy; Informal fallacy
|
Fallacy
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist; and appeal to the people
|
False cause
|
|
An informal fallacy that is committed when an arguer presents two nonjointly exhaustive alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive and then eliminates one, leaving the other as the conclusion
|
False dichotomy
|
|
An attribute of a categorical syllogism that specifies the location of the middle term
|
Figure
|
|
A method for proving invalidity in predicate logic that consists in reducing the universe to a single object and then sequentially increasing it until one is found in which the premises of an argument turn out true and the conclusion false
|
Finite universe method
|
|
A fallacy that can be identified by merely examining the form or structure of an argument. See also Fallacies (of various kinds)
|
Formal fallacy
|
|
A variable that is not bound by a quantifier
|
Free variable
|
|
The extent to which a hypothesis suggests new ideas for future analysis and confirmation
|
Fruitfulness
|
|
In probability theory, a rule for computing the probability of two events occurring together whether or not they are independent
|
General conjunction rule
|
|
In probability theory, a rule for computing the probability of either of two events whether or not they are mutually an argument. See also Fallacies (of various kinds)
|
General disjunction rule
|
|
A variable that is not bound by a quantifier
|
Free variable
|
|
The extent to which a hypothesis suggests new ideas for future analysis and confirmation
|
Fruitfulness
|
|
In probability theory, a rule for computing the probability of two events occurring together whether or not they are independent
|
General conjunction rule
|
|
In probability theory, a rule for computing the probability of either of two events whether or not they are mutually exclusive
|
General disjunction rule
|
|
A statement that makes a claim about all the members of a class
|
General statement
|
|
An inductive argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group; in predicate logic. See also Existential generalization; Universal generalization
|
Generalization
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when a general conclusion is drawn from atypical specific cases
|
Hasty generalization
|
|
Conjectures offered as possible explanations for a phenomenon; broad; empirical; proof of tentative acceptance of; theoretical; vague
|
Hypotheses
|
|
The reasoning process used to produce hypotheses
|
Hypothetical reasoning
|
|
A syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises. See also Pure hypothetical syllogism
|
Hypothetical syllogism
|
|
A categorical proposition having the form “Some S are P”
|
I proposition
|
|
A formal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the contraposition of an E or I statement
|
Illicit contraposition
|
|
A formal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on an incorrect application of the contrary relation
|
Illicit contrary
|
|
A formal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the conversion of an A or O statement
|
Illicit conversion
|
|
A formal fallacy that occurs when the major term in a categorical syllogism is distributed in the conclusion but not in the premise
|
Illicit major
|
|
A formal fallacy that occurs when the minor term in a categorical syllogism is distributed in the conclusion but not in the premise Illicit subalternation: A formal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on an incorrect application of the subalternation relation
|
Illicit minor
|
|
A formal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on an incorrect application of the subcontrary relation
|
Illicit subcontrary
|
|
An expression involving one or more examples that is intended to show what something means or how it is done
|
Illustration
|
|
An argument having a single premise
|
Immediate inference
|
|
Statements such that there is no line on their truth tables in which all of them are true
|
Inconsistent statements
|
|
The order of increasing class size
|
Increasing extension
|
|
The order of increasing specificity
|
Increasing intension
|
|
A lowercase letter (a, b, c . . . u, v, w) used to name individuals
|
Individual constant
|
|
A lowercase letter (x, y, z) used to represent anything at random in the universe
|
Individual variable
|
|
An argument incorporating the claim that it is improbable that the conclusion is false given that the premises are true; cogency of; strong
|
Inductive argument
|
|
The reasoning process expressed by an argument; conditional statements and; rules of
|
Inference
|
|
A claim that alleged evidence or reasons support or imply something
|
Inferential claim
|
|
A fallacy that can be detected only through analysis of the content of an argument; avoiding; detecting in ordinary language; generally. See also Fallacies (of various kinds)
|
Informal fallacy
|
|
The letter (a variable or constant) introduced by universal instantiation or existential instantiation
|
Instantial letter
|
|
A definition that assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the qualities or attributes that the word connotes
|
Intensional definition
|
|
The qualities or attributes that a term connotes
|
Intensional meaning (intension)
|
|
The extent to which the ideas or terms in a hypothesis are rationally rules of
|
Internal coherence
|
|
A claim that alleged evidence or reasons support or imply something
|
Inferential claim
|
|
A fallacy that can be detected only through analysis of the content of an argument; avoiding; detecting in ordinary language; generally. See also Fallacies (of various kinds)
|
Informal fallacy
|
|
The letter (a variable or constant) introduced by universal instantiation or existential instantiation
|
Instantial letter
|
|
A definition that assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the qualities or attributes that the word connotes
|
Intensional definition
|
|
The qualities or attributes that a term connotes
|
Intensional meaning (intension)
|
|
The extent to which the ideas or terms in a hypothesis are rationally
|
Internal coherence
|
|
A deductive argument in which it is possible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true
|
Invalid deductive argument
|
|
A definition intended to report the way a word is actually used in a language; criteria for
|
Lexical definition
|
|
The science that evaluates arguments; history of
|
Logic
|
|
(1) Statements that necessarily have the same truth value; (2) statements having the same truth value on each line under their main operators; consistency and
|
Logically equivalent statements
|
|
A statement that is necessarily false, a self-contradictory statement
|
Logically false statement
|
|
A statement that is necessarily true; a tautology; proving
|
Logically true statement
|
|
A condition that exists when a certain statement is not necessarily either true or false, given the truth value of some related statement
|
Logically undetermined truth value
|
|
Statements that are about the same general subject and that lack an inferential relationship
|
Loosely associated statements
|
|
The operator (connective) in a compound statement that has as its scope everything else in the statement
|
Main operator
|
|
In a categorical syllogism, the premise that contains the major term
|
Major premise
|
|
In a standard-form categorical syllogism, the predicate of the conclusion
|
Major term
|
|
The arithmetical average
|
Mean
|
|
The middle point when data are arranged in ascending order
|
Median
|
|
A method for identifying a causal connection between an effect and a single factor that is present in several occurrences in which the effect is present
|
Method of agreement
|
|
A method for identifying a causal connection between two conditions by matching variations in one condition with variations in another
|
Method of concomitant variation
|
|
A method for identifying a causal connection between an effect and a single factor that is present in an occurrence in which the effect is present and absent from an occurrence in which the effect is absent
|
Method of difference
|
|
A method of identifying a causal connection by subtracting already-known strands of causal connection from a compound causal connection
|
Method of residues
|
|
In a standard-form categorical syllogism, the term that occurs only in the premises
|
Middle term
|
|
In a categorical syllogism, the premise that contains the minor term
|
Minor premise
|
|
In a standard-form categorical syllogism, the subject of the conclusion
|
Minor term
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when the premise of an argument entails one particular conclusion but a completely different conclusion is actually drawn
|
Missing the point
|
|
A kind of logic that deals with concepts such as possibility, necessity, belief, and doubt
|
Modal logic
|
|
The value that occurs with the greatest frequency in a set of data
|
Mode
|
|
A diagram that illustrates the necessary relations that prevail between the four kinds of standard-form categorical propositions as interpreted from the Boolean standpoint
|
Modern square of opposition
|
|
A valid argument form/rule of inference: “If p then q / p // q” in predicate logic
|
Modus ponens
|
|
A valid argument form/rule of inference: “If p then q / not q // not p”
|
Modus tollens
|
|
A predicate used to assign an attribute to individual things
|
Monadic predicate
|
|
An attribute of a categorical syllogism that specifies the kind of statements (A, E, I, O) that make it up
|
Mood
|
|
A proof procedure by which the conclusion of an argument is derived from the premises through use of rules of inference; in predicate logic; in propositional logic
|
Natural deduction
|
|
The condition represented by the consequent in a conditional statement; causality and
|
Necessary condition
|
|
A statement having a tilde as its main operator; truth-functional definition of
|
Negation
|
|
A rule for computing the probability of an event from the probability of the event not happening
|
Negation rule
|
|
A proposition/statement that denies class membership
|
Negative proposition/statement
|
|
A distribution of random phenomena that has the shape of a bell
|
Normal probability distribution
|
|
A categorical proposition having the form “Some S are not P”
|
O proposition
|
|
An operation that consists of changing the quality of a standard-form categorical proposition and replacing the predicate term with its term complement; to reduce the number of terms in a syllogism
|
Obversion
|
|
A definition that assigns a meaning to a word by specifying experimental procedures that determine whether or not the word applies to a certain thing
|
Operational definition
|
|
Symbols used to connect simple propositions in propositional logic; truth-functional definitions of
|
Operators
|
|
Quantifiers that lie within the scope of one another
|
Overlapping quantifiers
|
|
A phrase that, when introduced into a statement, affects the form but not the meaning
|
Parameter
|
|
A proposition/statement that makes a claim about one or more (but not all) members of a class; in a restricted universe; in predicate logic
|
Particular proposition/statement
|
|
A definition intended to engender a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward what is denoted by the definiendum
|
Persuasive definition
|
|
A diagram that compares two situations through drawings that differ in either size or number
|
Pictogram
|
|
A form of expression that makes a recommendation about some future decision or course of conduct
|
Piece of advice
|
|
A definition intended to reduce the vagueness of a word
|
Precising definition
|
|
An expression of the form “is a bird,” “is a house,” and “are fish,”; monadic, relational
|
Predicate
|
|
A kind of logic that combines the symbolism of propositional logic with symbols used to translate predicates
|
Predicate logic
|
|
An uppercase letter used to translate a predicate; relational
|
Predicate symbol
|
|
In a standard-form categorical proposition, the term that comes immediately after the copula
|
Predicate term
|
|
An inductive argument that proceeds from knowledge of some event in the relative past to a claim about some other event in the relative future
|
Prediction
|
|
A statement in an argument that sets forth evidence; exclusive; inconsistent
|
Premise
|
|
A word that provides a clue to identifying a premise
|
Premise indicator
|
|
In the classical theory of probability, the principle that the various possible outcomes are equally probable
|
Principle of indifference
|
|
A set of rules for computing the probability of compound events from the probabilities of simple events
|
Probability calculus
|
|
The information content of a statement exceptive; exclusive. See also
|
Proposition
|
|
A kind of logic in which the fundamental components are whole statements or propositions
|
Propositional logic
|
|
A valid argument form/rule of inference: “If p then q / If q then r // If p then r”
|
Pure hypothetical syllogism
|
|
The attribute of a categorical proposition by which it is either affirmative or negative
|
Quality
|
|
In standard-form categorical propositions, the words “all,” “no,” and “some,” existential; nonstandard overlapping; rule for change of; unexpressed; universal
|
Quantifier
|
|
The attribute of a categorical proposition by which it is either universal or particular
|
Quantity
|
|
A sample in which every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected
|
Random sample
|
|
In statistics, the difference between the largest and smallest values in a set of data
|
Range
|
|
A fallacy that occurs when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by addressing extraneous issues and finishes by presuming that some conclusion has been established
|
Red herring
|
|
A predicate that expresses a connection between or among two or more individuals
|
Relational predicate
|
|
The theory according to which probabilities are computed by dividing the number of observed favorable events by the number of observed events
|
Relative frequency theory of probability
|
|
A kind of nonargument consisting of one or more statements that convey information about some topic or event
|
Report
|
|
In probability theory, a rule for computing the probability of two independent events occurring together
|
Restricted conjunction rule
|
|
In probability theory, a rule for computing the probability of either of two mutually exclusive events
|
Restricted disjunction rule
|
|
A rule consisting of a basic argument form by means of which the conclusion of an argument is derived from the premises
|
Rule of implication
|
|
A rule by means of which the conclusion of an argument is derived from the premises; for identity; for relational predicates and overlapping quantifiers; in predicate logic; misapplications of
|
Rule of inference
|
|
A rule consisting of two logically equivalent statement forms by means of which the conclusion of an argument is derived from the premises
|
Rule of replacement
|
|
The difference between the relative frequency with which some characteristic occurs in a sample and the relative frequency with which the same characteristic occurs in the population
|
Sampling error
|
|
A statement that is necessarily false, a logically false statement; and inconsistency
|
Self-contradictory statement
|
|
A statement that does not contain any other statement as a component
|
Simple statement
|
|
A valid rule of inference, “p and q // p”
|
Simplification
|
|
A proposition/statement that makes an assertion about a specifically named person, place, thing, or time; in predicate logic
|
Singular proposition/statement
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction, and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place
|
Slippery slope
|
|
A chain of categorical syllogisms in which the intermediate conclusions have been left out; Aristotelian; Goclenian; rules for; standard form of, Venn diagrams for
|
Sorites
|
|
A deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises
|
Sound argument
|
|
In statistics, a measure of how far the data vary or deviate from the mean value; the square root of the variance
|
Standard deviation
|
|
A proposition that has one of the following forms: “All S are P” “No S are P” “Some S are P” “Some S are not P”
|
Standard-form categorical proposition
|
|
A sorites in which each of the component propositions is in standard form, each term occurs twice, the predicate of the conclusion is in the first premise, and each successive premise has a term in common with the preceding one
|
Standard-form sorites
|
|
An arrangement of statement variables and operators such that the uniform substitution of statements in place of the variables results in a statement
|
Statement form
|
|
In predicate logic, the expression that remains when a quantifier is removed from a statement
|
Statement function
|
|
A kind of nonargument composed of statements that express the personal conviction of a speaker or writer without giving any evidence in support of that conviction
|
Statement of belief, statement of opinion
|
|
A lowercase letter, such as p or q, that can represent any statement
|
Statement variable
|
|
A definition that assigns a meaning to a word for the first time
|
Stipulative definition
|
|
A fallacy that occurs when the arguer misinterprets an opponent’s position for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the misinterpreted argument, and then proceeds to conclude that the original argument has been demolished
|
Straw man
|
|
An inductive argument in which it is improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true
|
Strong inductive argument
|
|
The relation by which a true A or E statement necessarily implies a true I or O statement, respectively, and by which a false I or O statement necessarily implies a false A or E statement, respectively
|
Subalternation relation
|
|
The relation that exists between two statements that are necessarily not both false
|
Subcontrary relation
|
|
In a standard-form categorical proposition, the term that comes immediately after the quantifier
|
Subject term
|
|
The theory according to which probabilities are computed from the odds that people would accept on a bet
|
Subjectivist theory of probability
|
|
An argument or statement that has the same form as a given argument form or statement form; of an argument form, of a statement form
|
Substitution instance
|
|
The condition represented by the antecedent in a conditional statement; causality and
|
Sufficient condition
|
|
A fallacy that occurs when the arguer ignores relevant evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion
|
Suppressed evidence
|
|
A deductive argument consisting of two premises and one conclusion. See also Categorical syllogism; Disjunctive syllogism; Hypothetical syllogism; Pure hypothetical syllogism
|
Syllogism
|
|
The logic that deals with categorical propositions and categorical syllogisms; predicate logic and
|
Syllogistic logic
|
|
A definition in which the definiens is a single word that connotes the same attributes as the definiendum
|
Synonymous definition
|
|
A statement that is necessarily true; a logically true statement
|
Tautologous statement
|
|
(1) A tautologous statement; (2) A rule of inference that eliminates redundancy in conjunctions and disjunctions; with relational predicates
|
Tautology
|
|
A word or group of words that can serve as the subject of a statement. See also
|
Term
|
|
The word or group of words that denotes the class complement
|
Term complement
|
|
A definition that assigns a meaning to a word by suggesting a theory that gives a certain characterization to the entities that the term denotes
|
Theoretical definition
|
|
Hypotheses that concern how something should be conceptualized
|
Theoretical hypotheses
|
|
A diagram that illustrates the necessary relations that prevail between the four kinds of standard-form categorical propositions as interpreted from the Aristotelian standpoint; proof of
|
Traditional square of opposition
|
|
A valid rule of inference that allows the antecedent and consequent of a conditional statement to switch places if and only if both are negated
|
Transposition
|
|
A compound proposition whose truth value is completely determined by the truth values of its components
|
Truth function
|
|
An arrangement of truth values that shows in every possible case how the truth value of a compound proposition is determined by the truth values of its simple components; for arguments; for propositions. See also Indirect truth tables
|
Truth table
|
|
The attribute by which a statement is either true or false; of compound statements; logically undetermined
|
Truth value
|
|
A variety of the argument-against-the-person fallacy that occurs when an arguer shifts the burden of guilt onto a second arguer for the purpose of discrediting his or her argument
|
Tu quoque
|
|
An inductive argument that is weak, has one or more false premises, fails to meet the total evidence requirement, or any combination of these
|
Uncogent argument
|
|
Valid from the Boolean standpoint; for immediate inferences; for syllogistic forms
|
Unconditionally valid
|
|
A formal fallacy that occurs when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is undistributed in both premises
|
Undistributed middle
|
|
A rule of inference that introduces universal quantifiers; invalid applications of; restrictions on
|
Universal generalization
|
|
A valid rule of inference that removes universal quantifiers; invalid applications of
|
Universal instantiation
|
|
In predicate logic, the quantifier used to translate universal statements
|
Universal quantifier
|
|
A proposition/statement that makes an assertion about every member of its subject class; in predicate logic; in a restricted universe
|
Universal proposition/statement
|
|
A deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more false premises, or both
|
Unsound argument
|
|
An expression that allows for borderline cases in which it is impossible to tell if the expression applies or does not apply
|
Vague expression
|
|
An argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true
|
Valid deductive argument
|
|
A claim that something is good, bad, right, or wrong
|
Value claim
|
|
In statistics, a measure of how far the data vary from the mean value
|
Variance
|
|
A form of expression intended to put someone on guard against a dangerous or detrimental situation
|
Warning
|
|
An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on an analogy (or similarity) that is not strong enough to support the conclusion
|
Weak analogy
|
|
An inductive argument in which the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises even though it is claimed to do so
|
Weak inductive argument
|
|
A syntactically correct arrangement of symbols
|
Well-formed formula (WFF)
|