A good deductive argument gives us conditional certainty.
一个好的演绎论点给我们有条件的确定性。
That's a strong inductive argument, why isn't that a deductive argument?
这是个有力的归纳论点，为什么不是演绎论点呢？
You mustn't think that deductive argument is certain and inductive arguments aren't.
你不能认为演绎论点是确定的，归纳论点是不确定的。
Another way to screw up a deductive argument is by arguing from a false 5 premise.
另一种乱用演绎论证的方式是从一个错误的前提进行论证。
A good deductive argument is sound if and only if it's both valid and has true premises.
一个好的演绎论点是完好的，如果且仅如果这些都有效，并且前提为真。
An inductive argument is more or less strong whereas deductive arguments are either valid or invalid. Okay What does an argument have to have in order it to be sound?
归纳论点或多或少有力，但是演绎论点有效无效，什么能说明论点完好？
But what's important about this argument is that it's deductive, its truth guaranteeing at least in the condition of the truth of the premises.
但是这个论点重要的是这是演绎的，至少它保证了真理，在前提真理的条件下。
The deductive rules of argument express the lowest requirement for rationality of legal argumentation.
可以说，演绎模式的说理规则表达了对于法律论证最低限度的理性要求。
The deductive rules of argument express the lowest requirement for rationality of legal argumentation.
可以说，演绎模式的说理规则表达了对于法律论证最低限度的理性要求。
应用推荐