the term proposition refers to either (a) the "content" or"meaning" of a meaningful declarative sentence or (b) the pattern

of symbols, marks, or sounds that make up a meaningful declarative sentence. The meaning of a proposition includes having the quality or property of being either true or false, and as such propositions are claimed to be truthbearers. Three types of proposition There are three types of proposition: fact, value and policy. Proposition of Fact A proposition of fact is a statement in which you focus largely on belief of the audience in its truth or falsehood. Your arguments are thus aimed at getting your audience to accept the statement as being true or false. Proposition of Value In a proposition of values, you make a statement where you are asking your audience to make an evaluative judgment as to whether the statement is morally good or bad, right or wrong. This may be done by comparing two items and asking them which is better. Propositions of Policy A proportion of policy advocates a course of action. In this, you ask your audience to endorse a policy or to Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.[1] The conclusion drawn is also called an idiomatic. The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic. Definition of MEDIATE INFERENCE : a logical inference drawn from more than one proposition or premise An immediate inference is an inference which can be made from only one statement or proposition. For instance, from the statement "All toads are green." we can make the immediate inference that "No toads are not green." There are a number of immediate inferences which can validly be made using logical operations, the result of which is a logically equivalent statement form to the given statement. There are also invalid immediate inferences which are syllogistic fallacies.

All of the following are thinking steps to prevent drawing false inferences 1. Verify and value the facts. 2. Assess prior knowledge. 3. Detect contradictions. An antecedent is the first half of a hypothetical proposition. Examples:

If P, then Q.

This is a nonlogical formulation of a hypothetical proposition. In this case, the antecedent is P, and the consequent is Q. In an implication, if implies then called the antecedent and is called the consequent.[1]

is

If X is a man, then X is mortal.

"X is a man" is the antecedent for this proposition.

If men have walked on the moon, then I am the king of France.

Here, "men have walked on the moon" is the antecedent. A consequent is the second half of a hypothetical proposition. In the standard form of such a proposition, it is the part that follows "then". In an implication, if implies then is called the antecedent and is called the consequent.[1] Examples:

If P, then Q.

Q is the consequent of this hypothetical proposition.

If X is a mammal, then X is an animal.

Here, "X is an animal" is the consequent.

If computers can think, then they are alive.

"They are alive" is the consequent. The consequent in a hypothetical proposition is not necessarily a consequence of the antecedent.

If monkeys are purple, then fish speak Klingon.

"Fish speak Klingon" is the consequent here, but intuitively is not a consequence of (nor does it have anything to do with) the claim made in the antecedent that "monkeys are purple". Informally, two kinds of logical reasoning can be distinguished in addition to formal deduction: induction and abduction. Given a precondition or premise, a conclusion or logical consequence and a rule or material conditional that implies the conclusion given the precondition, one can explain that:

Deductive reasoning determines whether the truth of a conclusion can be determined for that rule, based solely on the truth of the premises. Example: "When it rains, things outside get wet. The grass is outside, therefore: when it rains, the grass gets wet." Mathematical logic and philosophical logic are commonly associated with this style of reasoning. Inductive reasoning attempts to support a determination of the rule. It hypothesizes a rule after numerous examples are taken to be a conclusion that follows from a precondition in terms of such a rule. Example: "The grass got wet numerous times when it rained, therefore: the grass always gets wet when it rains." While they may be persuasive, these arguments are not deductively valid, see the problem of induction. Science is associated with this type of reasoning. Abductive reasoning selects a cogent set of preconditions. Given a true conclusion and a rule, it attempts to select some possible premises that, if true also, can support the conclusion, though not uniquely. Example: "When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is outside and nothing outside is dry, therefore: maybe it rained." Diagnosticians and detectives are commonly associated with this type of reasoning.

A syllogism (Greek: syllogismos "conclusion," "inference") is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two or more others (the premises) of a specific form. Basic structure A categorical syllogism consists of three parts:

Major premise Minor premise Conclusion

Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical proposition contains two categorical terms.[7] In Aristotle, each of the premises is in the form "All A are B," "Some A are B", "No A are B" or "Some A are not B", where "A" is one term and "B" is another. "All A are B," and "No A are B" are termed universal propositions; "Some A are B" and "Some A are not B" are termed particular propositions. More modern logicians allow some variation. Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion: in a

major premise, this is the major term (i.e., the predicate of the conclusion); in a minor premise, it is the minor term (the subject) of the conclusion. For example: Major premise: All humans are mortal. Minor premise: All Greeks are humans. Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal. Each of the three distinct terms represents a category. In the above example, humans, mortal, and Greeks. Mortal is the major term, Greeks the minor term. The premises also have one term in common with each other, which is known as the middle term; in this example, humans. Both of the premises are universal, as is the conclusion. Major premise: All mortals die. Minor premise: Some mortals are men. Conclusion: Some men die. Here, the major term is die, the minor term is men, and the middle term is mortals. The major premise is universal; the minor premise and the conclusion are particular. A sorites is a form of argument in which a series of incomplete syllogisms is so arranged that the predicate of each premise forms the subject of the next until the subject of the first is joined with the predicate of the last in the conclusion. For example, if one argues that a given number of grains of sand does not make a heap and that an additional grain does not either, then to conclude that no additional amount of sand would make a heap is to construct a sorites argument. In classical logic, hypothetical syllogism is a valid argument form which is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises.[1][2] If I do not wake up, then I cannot go to work. If I cannot go to work, then I will not get paid. Therefore, if I do not wake up, then I will not get paid. In propositional logic, hypothetical syllogism is the name of a valid rule of inference[3][4] (often abbreviated HS and sometimes also called the chain argument, chain rule, or the principle of transitivity of implication). Hypothetical syllogism is one of the rules in classical logic that is not always accepted in certain systems of nonclassical logic. The rule may be stated:

where the rule is that whenever instances of " ", and " of a proof, " " can be placed on a subsequent line.

" appear on lines

Hypothetical syllogism is closely related and similar to disjunctive syllogism, in that it is also type of syllogism, and also the name of a rule of inference. Hypothetical syllogisms were already known and discussed in antiquity

CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS Categorical propositions divide the world into two distinct classes and make an assertion about members of those classes. Every categorical proposition is a statement about the members of two classes and their relationship to one another. For example, All geraniums are flowering plants. Some logicians are not rational thinkers.

Now we can formulate the syllogism above. The terms: A = "is a mammal" B = "is a lion" C = "Leo" (individual subject) Thus: AaB (all lions are mammals) BiC (some C, Leo, is a lion) _____ AiC (some C, Leo, is a mammal)

Now, in propositional logic, we would have to formulate this in terms of propositions. If we only use the sentences above, we will get A (all lions are mammals) B (Leo is a lion) ___ C (Leo is a mammal) An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form. Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument.

There are many different informal fallacies, but a few basic types. For instance, material fallacies is error in what the arguer is talking about, while Verbal fallacies is error in how the arguer is talking. Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by assuming the conclusion in the proof. Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion with insufficient evidence. Fallacies of distraction fail to prove the conclusion with irrelevant evidence, like emotion. Fallacies of ambiguity fail to prove the conclusion due to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar