When proving validity (if the argument is obviously not invalid) so do we also have to find it out whether the argument is contradiction, tautology or contingent ?
If we are unable to prove the argument invalid as shown in the video as well so how are we supposed to show it as valid? Or we can just write that 'as shown that the argument is not invalid, therefore it is valid.' ?
Short truth table is also reductio ad absurdum. Moreover, putting the truth values in an argument to show it invalid is also the same. Aristotle used it in syllogisms as well.
Respected sir, ur way of teaching is fabulous. I can't stop listening.
Glad 😊
When proving validity (if the argument is obviously not invalid) so do we also have to find it out whether the argument is contradiction, tautology or contingent ?
A deductive argument is either valid or invalid. A statement is either tautology, contradiction or contingent by nature.
If we are unable to prove the argument invalid as shown in the video as well so how are we supposed to show it as valid? Or we can just write that 'as shown that the argument is not invalid, therefore it is valid.' ?
If there is no bad line, the argument is valid. If there is/ are good lines then the argument is valid too. The point is... there is no bad line.
If I may ask a simple question, where do we use reductio ad absurdum method?
Short truth table is also reductio ad absurdum. Moreover, putting the truth values in an argument to show it invalid is also the same. Aristotle used it in syllogisms as well.
Thank you sir, your videos are very helpful
You are welcome
Sir please upload other vdo on
19rules and again on short method of truth table.
It will take some time.
Aaj mera exam hai aur aapki wajah se accha jayega😂 thank you very much sir
All the best 👍🏻
👏👏👏nyc sir
Thanks 👍🏻
Sir me to fail hunga ye subject me😂
Koi bhi doubt ho ... pooch lena ... I will like to help.