Want this question answered?
This argument would be invalid because of false causality.
The fundamental theorum of calculus states that a definite integral from a to b is equivalent to the antiderivative's expression of b minus the antiderivative expression of a.
A fallacy is an argument that has poor or inappropriate reasoning, which therefore tends to make the argument either invalid or inconclusive. As a result, fallacies are generally weaker than arguments with concrete logic.On the other hand, there are times where writers use intentional fallacies (as a cover argument), in an attempt to highlight the opposite of what the fallacy states, thereby emphasizing their true argument. This may be for comic, satirical, or logical reasons.
Such a thing does exist. The problem here is the distinction between validity and truth. Validity refers to the soundness of the process of argument, Truth to the arguments affinity with real life states of affairs. It's easiest to understand with a demonstration. In the syllogism, or argument; Steve is a Dog. All Dogs have Brown fur. Therefore, Steve has brown fur. The argument is formally sound, as indicated below; A is B All B are C Therefore, A is C So the Steve argument is valid, even though its second premise (the minor premise) isn't true. Validity isn't about the content of the argument, its about the actual form the argument takes.
Both are arguments for the existence of god. They are both similar. The teleological argument, or argument from design posits that there is a god or designer based on the appearance of complexity, order, and design in nature. The argument is usually structured as follows: 1) Complexity implies a designer. 2) The universe is highly complex. 3) Therefore, the universe must have a designer. The cosmological argument, or first cause argument states that god must exist as a first cause to the universe. It is usually structured as follows: 1) Whatever exists has a cause. 2) The universe exists. 3) Therefore the universe had a cause.
states rights
It is an argument in support of the death penalty sentence. The Best Bet Argument for the death penalty states that though we are not 100% sure that it (the death penalty) will deter or prevent future murders/crimes, we assume that as a fear for this maximum punishment, it will deter future crimes. Criminals will fear the idea of the death penalty and will therefore not commit murders.
valid = based on good reasons or facts that are true: Actually, in logic, a valid argument is one where the premises lead to the conclusion, whether or not the premises (facts it is based on) are true. For example, the argument "All Presidents of the United States have green skin; Lady Gaga is a President of the United States and therefore has green skin" is a valid argument, notwithstanding the facts that US Presidents don't have green skin and Lady Gaga is not a US President.
The president recieved no electrocal vote from Southern states in the election
The President received no electoral votes from Southern states in the election
To apply for admission to vet school in the United States you must complete at least Calculus I in undergraduate college; some vet schools require Calculus II.
The president received no electoral votes from southern states before the election