a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true

In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or

"propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or
"proposition") known as the conclusion. ...

a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal
ARGUMENT, CONTROVERSY, DISPUTE  imply the expression ofopinions for and against some idea. An ARGUMENT  us
ually arisesfrom a disagreement between two persons, each of whomadvances facts supporting his or her o
wn point of view. ACONTROVERSY  or a DISPUTE  may involve two or more persons. ADISPUTE  is an oral contenti
on, usually brief, and often of a heated,angry, or undignified character: a  violent  dispute  over a  purchase. 
A CONTROVERSY  is an oral or written expression of contraryopinions, and may be dignified and of some durati
on: a  politicalcontroversy. 

Deductive and Inductive Arguments

A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the
conclusion. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong
that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.

An inductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting
the probable truth of the conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if
they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.

The difference between the two comes from the sort of relation the author or expositor of the argument takes there to
be between the premises and the conclusion. If the author of the argument believes that the truth of the
premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion due to definition, logical entailment or mathematical
necessity, then the argument is deductive. If the author of the argument does not think that the truth of the premises
definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, but nonetheless believes that their truth provides good reason to
believe the conclusion true, then the argument is inductive.

The noun “deduction” refers to the process of advancing a deductive argument, or going through a process of
reasoning that can be reconstructed as a deductive argument. “Induction” refers to the process of advancing an
inductive argument, or making use of reasoning that can be reconstructed as an inductive argument.

Because deductive arguments are those in which the truth of the conclusion is thought to be
completely guaranteed and not just made probable by the truth of the premises, if the argument is a sound one, the
truth of the conclusion is “contained within” the truth of the premises; i.e., the conclusion does not go beyond what
the truth of the premises implicitly requires. For this reason, deductive arguments are usually limited to inferences
that follow from definitions, mathematics and rules of formal logic. For example, the following are deductive
arguments:

There are 32 books on the top-shelf of the bookcase, and 12 on the lower shelf of the bookcase. There are no books anywhere
else in my bookcase. Therefore, there are 44 books in the bookcase.Bergen is either in Norway or Sweden. If Bergen is in
Norway, then Bergen is in Scandinavia. If Bergen is in Sweden, the Bergen is in Scandinavia. Therefore, Bergen is in
Scandinavia.

Inductive arguments, on the other hand, can appeal to any consideration that might be thought relevant to the
probability of the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments, therefore, can take very wide ranging forms, including
arguments dealing with statistical data, generalizations from past experience, appeals to signs, evidence or authority,
and causal relationships.
Some dictionaries define “deduction” as reasoning from the general to specific and “induction” as reasoning from
the specific to the general. While this usage is still sometimes found even in philosophical and mathematical contexts,
for the most part, it is outdated. For example, according to the more modern definitions given above, the following
argument, even though it reasons from the specific to general, is deductive, because the truth of the
premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion:

The members of the Williams family are Susan, Nathan and Alexander.
Susan wears glasses.
Nathan wears glasses.
Alexander wears glasses.
Therefore, all members of the Williams family wear glasses.

Moreover, the following argument, even though it reasons from the general to specific, is inductive:

It has snowed in Massachusetts every December in recorded history.

Therefore, it will snow in Massachusetts this coming December.

It is worth noting, therefore, that the proof technique used in mathematics called “mathematical induction”, is,
according to the contemporary definition given above, actually a form of deduction. Proofs that make use of
mathematical induction typically take the following form:

Property P is true of the number 0.

For all natural numbers n, if P holds of n then P also holds of n + 1.
Therefore, P is true of all natural numbers.

When such a proof is given by a mathematician, it is thought that if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows
necessarily. Therefore, such an argument is deductive by contemporary standards.

Because the difference between inductive and deductive arguments involves the strength of evidence which the
author believes the premises to provide for the conclusion, inductive and deductive arguments differ with regard to
the standards of evaluation that are applicable to them. The difference does not have to do with the content or subject
matter of the argument. Indeed, the same utterance may be used to present either a deductive or an inductive
argument, depening on the intentions of the person advancing it. Consider as an example.

Dom Perignon is a champagne, so it must be made in France.

It might be clear from context that the speaker believes that having been made in the Champagne area of France is
part of the defining feature of “champagne” proper and that therefore, the conclusion follows from the premise by
definition. If it is the intention of the speaker that the evidence is of this sort, then the argument is deductive.
However, it may be that no such thought is in the speaker’s mind. He or she may merely believe that most champagne
is made in France, and may be reasoning probabilistically. If this is his or her intention, then the argument is
inductive.

It is also worth noting that, at its core, the distinction has to do with the strength of the justification that the author or
expositor of the argument intends that the premises provide for the conclusion. If the argument is logically fallacious,
it may be that the premises actually do not provide justification of that strength, or even any justification at all.
Consider, the following argument:

All odd numbers are integers.

All even numbers are integers.
Therefore, all odd numbers are even numbers.

This argument is logically invalid. In actuality, the premises provide no support whatever for the conclusion.
However, if this argument were ever seriously advanced, we must assume that the author would believe that the truth
of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Therefore, this argument is still deductive. A bad deductive
argument is not an inductive argument.

See also the articles on “Argument” and “Validity and Soundness” in this encyclopedia.

a message that is stated or declared; a communication (oral or written) setting forth particulars
or facts etc; "according to his statement he was in London on that day"

argument: a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true; "it was a strong
argument that his hypothesis was true"

In logic a statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false. A statement is distinct
from a sentence in that a sentence is only one formulation of a statement, whereas there may
be many other formulations expressing the same statement. ...

Here are two senses for statement:

1. A statement
is an
illocutionary
act that has
the assertive
illocutionary
point of
saying that
some state of
affairs is true.
2. A statement
is
a sentence ha
  ving a form
that is
typically used
to express
such
illocutionary
acts (such as
an English
declarative
sentence
which has
a subject foll
owed by
a verb).
Here are two senses for statement:
1. A statement is
an
illocutionary
act that has
the assertive
illocutionary
point of saying
that some
state of affairs
is true.
2. A statement is
a sentence hav
  ing a form that
is typically
used to
express such
illocutionary
acts (such as
an English
declarative
sentence
which has
a subject follo
wed by
a verb).

the difference between a statement and an argument is a statement is somthing that some one states like....." i
like pizza." and an argument is 2 people who are disscussing or debating somthing like... person #1 "i think we
should have a new hospital built." person #2 " well i most certainly dont think we need another one."

Read
more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_statement_and_argument#ixzz1GTCxWzoP

Statement is an action of saying something although not proved yet. Arguments is an effort you make to prove
that your point of view is correct, although not entirely proved yet.

A statement is simply stating a fact or opinion. For Example, "I've never seen that movie before."
or, "George Washington was our first president."
An arguement is when you and another person or group disagrees on a topic and you're stating facts to help back
up that your answer or opinion is true.
For Example-
Person 1, "That was three years ago." 
Person 2, "No, that was two years ago. Remeber? It was when we bought our new house." 
Person 1, "No it wasn't. We hadn't bought our new house yet." 
-Hope I helped :)

Read
more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_statements_and_arguments#ixzz1GTD9OMKn
An argument is an attempt to persuade someone to see a better, different perspective, a contradiction are two
simple statements that cannot both be agreed upon without being hypocritical. An argument is derived from
feelings as opposed to simply having a different point of view. Arguing often allows you to support what you're
saying you give reason for what you believe in. You can contradict yourself if you dictate something and then prove
yourself against what you said. For example I said, "I don't ever wear black shoes," and then the next day I am
wearing black shoes. 
On the other hand an argument involves two or more people going back and forth. They are not the same word
and have different meanings you couldn't use both of these words in a sentence to describe the same event. I
think if you could contradict a person within your argument, but the contradiction is not the essence of the
argument. Additionally, people could agree on certain aspects thereof, which would still qualify it as an argument
despite the absence of

Read
more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_contradiction_and_argument#ixzz1GTDQKLFi

An opinion, whether it is grounded in fact or completely unsupportable, is an idea that an individual or group holds
to be true. An opinion does not necessarily have to be supportable or based on anything but one's own personal
feelings, or what one has been taught. 

An argument is an assertion or claim that is supported with concrete, real-world evidence. Many people confuse or
lump the two terms because they cannot recognize the difference between evidence and reasons. In this case,
reasons are typically associated with 'feelings' or commonly accepted ideals, while evidence is associated with
measurable, objective truths or realities. While arguments may not always be ''right'' or true, they must at least be
supported by some kind of external evidence. 

Many people are unable to distinguish the difference between reasons and evidence because their own personal
bias clouds the distinction between the subjective and the objective.

Read
more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_an_opinion_and_an_argument#ixzz1GTDb8ft
m

his article is about the word as it is used in logic. For other uses, see Argument (disambiguation).

In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as

the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. A deductive

argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises; an inductive argument asserts

that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, and sound or not

sound. An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises and

(consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.

Each premise and the conclusion are only either true or false, i.e. are truth bearers or "truth-candidates". The sentences

composing an argument are referred to as being either true or false, not as being valid or invalid; deductive arguments are
referred to as being valid or invalid, not as being true or false. Some authors refer to the premises and conclusion using the

terms declarative sentence,statement, proposition, sentence, or even indicative utterance. The reason for the variety is

concern about the ontological significance of the terms, proposition in particular. Whichever term is used, each premise and

the conclusion must be capable of being true or false.

Formal and informal arguments

Further information: Informal logic and Formal logic

Informal arguments are studied in informal logic, are presented in ordinary

language and are intended for everyday discourse. Conversely, formal arguments
are studied in formal logic (historically calledsymbolic logic, more commonly referred
to as mathematical logic today) and are expressed in a formal language. Informal
logic may be said to emphasize the study of argumentation, whereas formal logic
emphasizes implication and inference. Informal arguments are sometimes implicit.
That is, the logical structure –the relationship of claims, premises, warrants, relations
of implication, and conclusion –is not always spelled out and immediately visible and
must sometimes be made explicit by analysis.
[edit]Deductive arguments
Main article: Deductive argument

A deductive argument is one which, if valid, has a conclusion that is entailed by its
premises. In other words, the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the
premises—if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. It would be
self-contradictory to assert the premises and deny the conclusion, because the
negation of the conclusion is contradictory to the truth of the premises.
[edit]Validity

Main article: Validity

Arguments may be either valid or invalid. If an argument is valid, and its premises
are true, the conclusion must be true: a valid argument cannot have true premises
and a false conclusion.
The validity of an argument depends, however, not on the actual truth or falsity of its
premises and conclusions, but solely on whether or not the argument has a
valid logical form. The validity of an argument is not a guarantee of the truth of its
conclusion. A valid argument may have false premises and a false conclusion.
Logic seeks to discover the valid forms, the forms that make arguments valid
arguments. An argument form is valid if and only if all arguments of that form are
valid. Since the validity of an argument depends on its form, an argument can be
shown to be invalid by showing that its form is invalid, and this can be done by
giving another argument of the same form that has true premises but a false
conclusion. In informal logic this is called a counter argument.
The form of argument can be shown by the use of symbols. For each argument
form, there is a corresponding statement form, called a corresponding conditional,
and an argument form is valid if and only its corresponding conditional is a logical
truth. A statement form which is logically true is also said to be a valid statement
form. A statement form is a logical truth if it is true under allinterpretations. A
statement form can be shown to be a logical truth by either (a) showing that it is
a tautology or (b) by means of a proof procedure.
The corresponding conditional, of a valid argument is a necessary truth (true in all
possible worlds) and so we might say that the conclusion necessarily follows from
the premises, or follows of logical necessity. The conclusion of a valid argument is
not necessarily true, it depends on whether the premises are true. The conclusion of
a valid argument need not be a necessary truth: if it were so, it would be so
independently of the premises.
For example:
Some Greeks are logicians; therefore, some logicians are Greeks. Valid
argument; it would be self-contradictory to admit that some Greeks are
logicians but deny that some (any) logicians are Greeks.
All Greeks are human and all humans are mortal; therefore, all Greeks are
mortal. : Valid argument; if the premises are true the conclusion must be true.
Some Greeks are logicians and some logicians are tiresome; therefore, some
Greeks are tiresome. Invalid argument: the tiresome logicians might all be
Romans (for example).
Either we are all doomed or we are all saved; we are not all saved; therefore,
we are all doomed. Valid argument; the premises entail the conclusion.
(Remember that this does not mean the conclusion has to be true; it is only
true if the premises are true, which they may not be!)
Arguments can be invalid for a variety of reasons. There are well-
established patterns of reasoning that render arguments that follow
them invalid; these patterns are known as logical fallacies.
[edit]Soundness

Main article: Soundness

A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. A sound

argument, being both valid and having true premises, must have a
true conclusion. Some authors (especially in earlier literature) use
the term sound as synonymous with valid.
[edit]Inductive arguments
Main article: Inductive argument

Non-deductive logic is reasoning using arguments in which the

premises support the conclusion but do not entail it. Forms of non-
deductive logic include the statistical syllogism, which argues from
generalizations true for the most part, and induction, a form of
reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual
instances. An inductive argument is said to be cogent if and only if
the truth of the argument's premises would render the truth of the
conclusion probable (i.e., the argument is strong), and the
argument's premises are, in fact, true. Cogency can be
considered inductive logic's analogue to deductive logic's
"soundness." Despite its name, mathematical induction is not a
form of inductive reasoning. The problem of induction is the
philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning is valid.
[edit]Defeasible arguments

An argument is defeasible when additional information (such as

new counterreasons) can have the effect that it no longer justifies
its conclusion. The term "defeasibility" goes back to the legal
theoristH.L.A. Hart, although he focused on concepts instead of
arguments. Stephen Toulmin's influential argument model includes
the possibility of counterreasons that is characteristic of defeasible
arguments, but he did not discuss the evaluation of defeasible
 arguments. Defeasible arguments give rise to defeasible
reasoning.
[edit]Argument by analogy

Argument by analogy may be thought of as argument from the

particular to particular.[1] An argument by analogy may use a
particular truth in a premise to argue towards a similar particular
truth in the conclusion.[1] For example, if A. Plato was mortal, and
B. Socrates was like Plato in other respects, then asserting that C.
Socrates was mortal is an example of argument by analogy
because the reasoning employed in it proceeds from a particular
truth in a premise (Plato was mortal) to a similar particular truth in
the conclusion, namely that Socrates was mortal. [2]

In logic a statement is either (a) a meaningful declarative sentence that is either true or false, or (b) what is asserted or

made by the use of a declarative sentence. In the latter case, a statement is distinct from a sentence in that a sentence is

only one formulation of a statement, whereas there may be many other formulations expressing the same statement.

Philosopher of language, Peter Strawson advocated the use of the term "statement" in sense (b) in preference

to proposition. Strawson used the term "Statement " to be such that two declarative sentences make the same statement if

they say the same of the same thing. Thus the term "statement" may refer to a sentence or something made (expressed) by

a sentence. In either case they are purported truth bearers.

Examples of sentences that are (or make) statements:

 "Socrates is a man."

 "A triangle has three sides."

 "Paris is the capital of Spain."

The first two (make statements that) are true, the third is (or makes a statement that is) false.

Examples of sentences that are not (or do not make) statements:

 "Who are you?"

 "Run!"

 "Greenness perambulates"

 "I had one grunch but the eggplant over there."

 "The King of France in Wise"

 "Pegasus exists"

The first two examples are not declarative sentences and therefore are not (or do not make) statements. The third and

fourth are declarative sentences but, lacking meaning, are neither true nor false and therefore are not (or do not make)

statements. The fifth and sixth examples are a meaningful declarative sentence which Russell held was false but Stawson

held was neither since it did not make a statement.

L02.1 What is a statement?

There are three main sentence types in English:

 Declarative sentences are used for assertions, e.g. "He is here."

 Interrogative sentences are used to ask questions, e.g. "Is he here?"
 Imperative sentences are used for making requests or issusing commands, e.g. "Come here!"
For present purposes, we shall take a statement to be any declarative sentence. A declarative sentence is a complete and
grammatical sentence that makes a claim. So here are some examples of statements in English :

 Snow is white.
 The moon is made of green cheese.
 Everyone is here.
 Whatever will be, will be.
 The data and information provided on this web page is for informational purposes only, and is not intended for
trading or commercial purposes, unless written prior permission is obtained by the user from the author, though the
author will not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
As you can see, statements can be true or false, and they can be simple or complex. But they must be grammatical and
complete sentences. So these are not statements :

 The United Nations [ A proper name, but not a sentence ]

 Bridge over troubled waters. [ Not a complete sentence ]
 Come here right now! [ A command that is not a complete sentence making a claim ]
 Will you be available on tuesday or wednesday? [ A question ]
 HJGAS&*^@#JHGKJAS*&^*!@GJHGAA*&S [ Ungrammatical ]
There is an easy test to decide whether something is a statement in English. Suppose you have a sentence φ and you add
"it is true that" to the front. If the resulting expression is grammatical, then φ is a statement. Otherwise it is not.
So for example, φ might be "bridge over troubled waters". We append "it is true that" to the front, and end up with "it is true
that bridge over troubled waters." But this expression is not grammatical. So "bridge over troubled waters" is not a
statement. However, "I am like a bridge over troubled waters" is a statement, because "it is true that I am like a bridge over
troubled waters" is grammatical.