Sentences with phrase «logical argument you use»

Can someone explain a really good logical argument you use to persuade sellers that a lease option is good to do.

Not exact matches

This would insinuate that you should use both the power of stories and the «logical» argument in different phases.

There are reasonable arguments for adopting the measures used in Quality and Price over those used in the Magic Formula, but it's not an unambiguously more logical approach than the Magic Formula.

You are using an «argument form ignorance» which is a logical fallacy.

It's a logical argument on the surface, and one Christians have been using since the days of Prohibition.

If you hate them in the same way that you condemn them for being, it makes you no better than the Stereotypes you portrayed in your comment, so grow up, and use a logical argument, instead of the very hate Democrats decry, and the Tea Party embraces.

If you hate them in the same way that you condemn them for being, it makes you no better than the Stereotypes you portrayed in your comment, so grow up, and use a logical argument, instead of the very hate Democrats decry, and the Tea Party embraces.Hate against any group of people you dis - agree is still hate and is not tolerable in my opinion.

you are attempting to use the logical fallacy argument from authority.

Using concepts that you CLEARLY don't understand in your arguments is about as logical as your conclusions.

That in itself proves nothing — using it to argue for God's existence is simply an argument from authority, which is a well - known logical fallacy.

Perhaps I'm just more used to logical arguments in a more set format?

Nah:» * yawn * Yes, yes, because a substantive rebuttal showing (1) the fallacy being used, (2) why it's fallacious, and (3) demonstrating how and why that makes «Colin's» argument a failure is «stupid» and «ironic» while avoiding being «logical».

* yawn * Yes, yes, because a substantive rebuttal showing (1) the fallacy being used, (2) why it's fallacious, and (3) demonstrating how and why that makes «Colin's» argument a failure is «stupid» and «ironic» while avoiding being «logical».

In an earlier attack he argues that (for some reason) using the «if, then» argument (if torturing a man will held defend our troops, then we ought to torture him) to support the use of torture by government officials on our enemies, isn't legitimate, because (crazy logical leap) many interrogators say torture doesn't work -LRB-!?).

And if we affirm that Jesus was true God and true man and believe that he rose bodily from the tomb, then logical consistency demands that we not use the Enlightenment's antisupernatural, deistic or naturalistic arguments against traditional views on the virgin birth, the miracle stories of the Bible, the presence of the Holy Spirit, the future return of Christ, prayer and others.

Suffice for now is to say this: it is my opinion that 1) Scripture is clear that God's wrath and holiness demanded a sin payment, 2) as I read your articles you seem to be trying to use every logical, illustrative, and theological trick to convince yourself it's not true, but it's like you're losing the argument with yourself, 3) I really enjoyed that you broadened the truth of salvation through Jesus past justification (which many fundamentals focus on) to include redemption, sanctification, covenant marriage, adoption, etc..

However you answer, what Scriptures and logical arguments would you use to defend your position?

At Erfurt the Occamists gave Martin a confidence in logical processes and the use of argument and dialectic which never left him, however much he thundered against it as a way to religious faith.

I don't know if they did or not, but it's not a logical fallacy unless they used it in a formal argument.

@JJPawn: So next time you attempt to try and confuse or trick forum members using a fallacious argument, make sure it is logical; honest and backed up by undisputed facts, otherwise you will meet people like me who will discredit you.

And the more you read conservative blogs, the more clearly you can see the logical fallacies, straw man arguments, and misrepresentations used to justify its deluded conclusions.

The purpose of this perspective, then, is to provide a logical argument for a new approach to classifying human disease that both appreciates the uses and limits of reductionism and incorporates the tenets of the non ‐ reductionist approach of complex systems analysis.

Use critical reasoning, analytical capacity and the correct technical language and formulate logical arguments.

Hi John, thank you for your response, although it was rife with logical fallacy and probably insincere (if you're not a proponent of juice fasting or any other nutritional program, why'd you take the time to write a long response to me, in which you're clearly disturbed by my argument and use the same typical arguments as holistic / homeopathic medicine practitioners around the globe?)

Karl Marx famously made a special use of dialectic in applying this form of logical argument to historical analysis.

Writing that uses evidence and logical integration and framing of concepts to advance an argument or convey an idea.

By conducting some research to find effective resources to use as your source material, organize the arguments in a logical manner, and structure the paper to complete the argument presented, students can create a persuasive dissertation.

If you want to hide that your issue is with eReaders (and not eReader prices) you could always use fancy words like freemium and subscription revenue to pretend that your «eReaders are worth $ 0» feeling is actually a logical argument.

In mathematics, a «proof» is a logical argument, made using established mathematical principles, that demonstrates... read more»

In mathematics, a «proof» is a logical argument, made using established mathematical principles, that demonstrates the validity of a specific claim.

There are reasonable arguments for adopting the measures used in Quality and Price over those used in the Magic Formula, but it's not an unambiguously more logical approach than the Magic Formula.

Kafre's solo exhibition Things, Mereology and Schemes is a new body of work focused on three main topics of particular interest to the artist: (1) Things — the distinction between the natural things, non-natural things and the artifacts that occur between them; (2) Mereology — the philosophical and mathematical study of parts and the wholes they form, and (3) Schemes — a scheme consists of a table's structure, which physical constitution is mainly due to columns, names and variables and the relation between them; used to map out something, or to design the internal of a logical system; the main points of an argument or theory, etcetera.

Victor makes an argument from personal incredulity while accusing others of using logical fallacies.

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

You have made the logical error of affirming the truth of a consequent of an argument that, though logically sound, can not be used to discover the truth (or otherwise) of the antecedent because we know that the argument's components are F T and T or at best?

Note the distinction — in one case, your strawman case, consensus is used as the basis for a logical scientific argument.

On both sides of the climate debate, those with a strong position either way tend to use the facts (as they see them) to debug logical arguments instead of vice versa.

When Slide 4 is taken to the logical conclusion Lindzen seemingly wants the honourable members to draw, namely that if greenhouse gases continue on their current rise we can expect a further rise of only 0.8 C over the next 150 years, he's simply using the same linear - trend argument that Girma and Arfur Bryant love trotting out, obfuscated to make it less obvious.

Your lack of logical ability is demonstrated by your use of the logical fallacy of «Argument from Authority» which you again present here concerning «the viewpoint of the IPCC» (despite my having told you of that fallacy).

Logical fallacy there, JB — your argument could be used to «prove» that ANY CO2 source is «responsible» for the atmospheric rise:

As for your desire for healthcare to be factored into the fossil fuel costs, that is more of guilt propaganda than logical argument.They certainly could not be used for subsidy arguments as the government doesn't pay for all those healthcare costs (we're not a single - payer socialist system in America).

Joel Shore (06:53:53) You are using the argument to authority and that is not a logical fallacy when your authorities are right.

This article fails to discuss what could be called «logical inconsistency in arguments» relating to the datasets that are used to define the «Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation signal» and related effects on hurricane intenstity and frequency.

And to do so, use indisputable facts, calm, logical arguments, and links to respected authorities.