Question

Examine an argument made in public and translate its conclusion to show one of the four standard-form categorical propositions (A, E, I, or O). Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Why or why not? Second, if its premises are true, what else can you infer about the conclusion? Analyze.

Answer 1

In logical analysis of an argument, we assess the truth of the premises and evaluate whether the conclusion logically follows from them. Deductive reasoning is considered valid when the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows. Logical assessment involves determining if the premises support the conclusion, while truth assessment involves evaluating the truth of the premises.

Step-by-step explanation:

Logical Analysis of an Argument

In logical analysis of an argument, we assess the truth of the premises and evaluate whether the conclusion logically follows from them. If we disagree with the conclusion or believe it to be untrue, we look for weaknesses or untruths in the premises. To do this, we check the facts if the evidence is empirical, consider possible counterexamples if the evidence is a conceptual claim, and analyze whether there are exceptions to the principle if the evidence is a principle.

Deductive Inferences

In deductive reasoning, if the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows from them, the argument is considered valid. To test for validity, we provisionally assume the truth of the premises and check if there is any scenario where the premises are true but the conclusion is false. If such a scenario exists, the argument is invalid.

Inferencing and Evaluating Arguments

A good inference involves clear steps from premises to conclusion. Logical assessment involves determining whether the premises logically support the conclusion. Truth assessment, on the other hand, involves evaluating the truth of the premises. It is important to remain neutral and provisionally assume the premises are true while evaluating the argument. Well-supported claims are those that have good reasons or evidence to accept them.

Answer 2

See explaination

Step-by-step explanation:

A contention made in open that the security of our nation is compromised by psychological oppression; so the National Security Agency can catch our telephone calls.

The straight out recommendation utilized here is; specific confirmed for example a few people are psychological militant.

The end pursues the reason that the security of the nation is under risk so the telephone calls can be captured.

Since the reason is genuine we can derive that we should monitor the security of our country.