Related to Objection (argument)

Argument mapAn argument map or argument diagram is a visual representation of the structure of an argument. An argument map typically includes all the key components of the argument, traditionally called the conclusion and the premises, also called contention and reasons. Argument maps can also show co-premises, objections, counterarguments, rebuttals, inferences, and lemmas.

Co-premiseA co-premise is a premise in reasoning and informal logic which is not the main supporting reason for a contention or a lemma, but is logically necessary to ensure the validity of an argument. One premise by itself, or a group of co-premises can form a reason. Logical structureEvery significant term or phrase appearing in a premise of a , should also appear in the contention/conclusion or in a co-premise.

CounterargumentIn reasoning and argument mapping, a counterargument is an objection to an objection. A counterargument can be used to rebut an objection to a premise, a main contention or a lemma. Synonyms of counterargument may include rebuttal, reply, counterstatement, counterreason, comeback and response. An attempt to rebut an argument may involve generating a counterargument, or finding a counterexample.

PremiseA premise is a proposition offered to support a conclusion. Premises are true or false statements that act as the starting points of arguments by presenting reasons to substantiate or refute assertions. Each argument is made up of a set of premises together with a conclusion. For example, the premises "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man" guarantee the conclusion "Socrates is mortal".

ArgumentAn argument is one or more premises—sentences, statements, or propositions—directed towards arriving at a logical conclusion. The purpose of an argument is to give reasons for one's thinking and understanding via justification, explanation, or persuasion. As a series of logical steps, arguments are intended to determine or show the degree of truth or acceptability of a logical conclusion.

Begging the questionIn classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question (Latin: petitio principii), or assuming the conclusion, is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion. Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true.

Argumentation theoryArgumentation theory is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning. With historical origins in logic, dialectic and rhetoric, argumentation theory includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic and procedural rules in both Artificial intelligence and real-world settings.

ParmenidesParmenides of Elea (; Ancient Greek: Παρμενίδης ὁ Ἐλεάτης; fl. late sixth or early fifth century BC) was a pre-SocraticGreek philosopher from Elea in Magna Graecia (Southern Italy). Parmenides was born in the Greek colony of Elea to a wealthy and illustrious family.

List of fallaciesA fallacy is an error in reasoning that undermines an argument's support for its conclusion. In academic usage, the term usually applies to arguments, although it is sometimes used more broadly for errors in reasoning in explanations, definitions, questions, or other forms of discourse. A fallacious argument may nevertheless have a true conclusion; the defect lies in the inadequate reasoning offered in support of it.

Deductive reasoningForm of reasoningDeductive reasoning is the process of drawing valid inferences. An inference is valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, meaning that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. For example, the inference from the premises "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man" to the conclusion "Socrates is mortal" is deductively valid. An argument is sound if it is valid and all its premises are true.

InferenceInferences are steps in logical reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences. Inference is traditionally divided into deduction and induction, a distinction that dates at least to Aristotle (300s BC). A third type of inference, abduction, has been proposed, notably by Charles Sanders Peirce. Deduction is inference derivinglogical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic.

Question of lawIn law, a question of law, also known as a point of law, is a question that must be answered by a judge and cannot be answered by a jury. Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts. Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles. They can be applied to many situations rather than particular circumstances or facts.

refuteRelated word or term.