To standardize an argument, separate its conclusion and premises unambiguously. Arguments for standardization should not be confused with arguments for formalization or schematization. An argument for standardization is one that seeks to establish the fact that some entity is or is not standardized; an argument for formalization is one that seeks to prove a mathematical theorem; an argument for schematization is one that seeks to provide a useful shorthand for expressing certain concepts or ideas.
For example, the argument that trees are plants is an argument for standardization because it makes no claim about what kind of tree or plant. The argument that all trees are logical constructs is an argument for formalization because it claims to prove a mathematical truth. The argument that trees are used to convey cultural values is an argument for schematization because it uses trees as a tool for thinking about something else. None of these arguments seeks to establish the fact that trees are standardized against some other entity. They each seek to apply standards differently to trees and plants.
An argument to standardize an entity E is one in which the conclusion asserts that E is or is not standardized. For example, an argument for standardizing trees would conclude that they are standardized against grass. Such arguments can be classified into three types: deductive, inductive, and abductive.
The standard form of an argument is a method of presenting the argument that makes it apparent which statements are premises, how many premises exist, and which proposition is the conclusion. The standard form was first proposed by Aristotle.
All arguments can be divided into two broad categories based on how they are constructed. The first category is known as "syllogistic" arguments because they consist of a series of syllogisms. A syllogism is a logical argument in which three propositions are given (called premises), one of them is concluded (the conclusion) from the others.
Every syllogism has three parts: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The major premise states what we know to be true; the conclusion states what we want to prove. The middle term, which connects the two, is called a "reason". Reasons can be words or phrases, such as "all men are mortal", "everything that exists has a cause", or even sentences if they contain the necessary connectives (such as if-then clauses). Reasons can also be called "principles".
In order to prove our conclusion, we need only show that one of the premises is true. If we can do this for each of the premises, then the conclusion will follow automatically.
The conclusion of the argument is listed last in standard style. The standard form is used by most philosophers because it enables others to assess the validity of arguments easily. There are several other forms of argumentation available, but they are less common.
In traditional formal logic, the standard form is achieved by writing out all the premisses followed by the conclusion. For example: "All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, he will die. This argument is valid because if all men are mortal, then Socrates is mortal; thus, he will die." See also: How do I know if an argument is valid?
Today, many philosophers study arguments in non-traditional ways. For example, some philosophers study arguments diagrammatically or algorithmically. They may also study arguments within particular philosophical systems or theories. However, even within these non-traditional approaches, logicians usually still use the standard form.
There are times when people who have never thought about arguments before want to see if an argument is valid. For example, someone might ask you whether a given argument is valid, even though they have not read any books on logic.
Here is a list of things to keep in mind while rewriting an argument in standard form:
Standard weight, constituting or corresponding to a standard, especially as set by law or tradition b: sound and useful, but not of the highest grade of meat. 2a: standard car equipment that is often and extensively utilized, available, or provided. B: well-established and well-versed in conventional opera. 3a: a person or thing regarded as representative or typical of its kind.
The word "standard" has several meanings as used in business. Which one you use depends on what you want to say. There are two main types of standards: internal and external. Internal standards include policies, procedures, guidelines, and practices that have been adopted within an organization. For example, a financial institution may have an internal standard procedure for handling customer complaints. This would be an internal standard because it applies solely to this particular organization. External standards are those that are established by industry leaders or government agencies. An example of an external standard is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) requirement that all banks maintain a minimum level of capitalization. These types of standards help organizations avoid losing customers due to poor service or product quality.
When you use the word "standard" in business, you are usually referring to an internal standard. This means that there should be one specific procedure for doing something. For example, if you need to file a complaint with your bank, there should be only one way to do it. This avoids confusion when dealing with multiple issues related to one customer request.
An argument in logic involves (at least) two declarative phrases (or "propositions") known as the "premises" (or "premisses"), as well as another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. The fundamental argumentation framework consists of two premises and one conclusion. There are other forms of arguments, such as those using more than three sentences or containing hypothetical situations. However, even these more complex forms of arguments can be divided into two distinct parts - a description of what is assumed to be true and a statement asserting that this assumption is correct.
In formal terms, an argument has exactly two premises and one conclusion. It is a structure composed of a major premise and a minor premise with a logical connector (such as "therefore", "so", or "thus") between them. This structure is then followed by a conclusion which restates the initial idea but in a different form. An argument cannot have more than two premises or less than two; otherwise it would not be an argument but something else instead. For example, "people like brownies" is a premise because it is a statement that we assume to be true, and "steven loves people" is a conclusion because it states what we assume as true.
All arguments share a common structure. They start with a major premise(s) and then connect to a conclusion with a logical symbol. Although there are many different forms of arguments, they all follow this basic structure.