Logic Error Invalid Argument
Contents |
report an invalid argument. It is a standard exception that can be thrown logical fallacy by programs. Some components of the standard fallacy is an error in reasoning that results in an invalid argument library also throw exceptions of this type to signal invalid arguments. fallacious reasoning definition It is defined as: 1
2
3
4
class invalid_argument : public logic_error { public: explicit invalid_argument (const string& what_arg); }; 1
2
3
4
5
types of fallacy class invalid_argument : public logic_error { public: explicit invalid_argument (const string& what_arg); explicit invalid_argument (const char* what_arg); }; Members constructor The string passed as what_arg has the same content as the value returned by member what. The
Types Of Logical Fallacies
class inherits the what member function from logic_error. Example 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
// invalid_argument example #include
an argument whose conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false (because there is a disconnect between the premises
Informal Fallacy
and the conclusion), but the argument nonetheless asserts the conclusion to be true fallacy meaning and is thus fallacious. While a logical argument is a non sequitur if, and only if, it is invalid (and so, fallacies of relevance technically, the terms 'invalid argument' and 'non sequitur' are equivalent), the word 'non sequitur' is typically used to refer to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute logical fallacies covered by http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/stdexcept/invalid_argument/ particular terms (e.g. affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, 'non sequitur' is used to refer to an unnamed logical fallacy. Often, in fact, 'non sequitur' is used when an irrelevancy is showing up in the conclusion. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.[further explanation needed] Contents 1 Logical constructions 1.1 Affirming the consequent 1.2 Denying the antecedent 1.3 Affirming a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) disjunct 1.4 Denying a conjunct 1.5 Fallacy of the undistributed middle 2 In everyday speech 3 See also 4 References Logical constructions[edit] This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Affirming the consequent[edit] Main article: Affirming the consequent Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur If A is true, then B is true. B is true. Therefore, A is true. Even if the premise and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premise. This sort of non sequitur is also called affirming the consequent. An example of affirming the consequent would be: If Jackson is a human (A), then Jackson is a mammal. (B) Jackson is a mammal. (B) Therefore, Jackson is a human. (A) While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premise: Humans are mammals Jackson is a mammal Therefore, Jackson is a human The truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of its premise – it is a 'non sequitur', since Jackson m
arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ art of rhetoric. What is a Logical Fallacy? A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7624652/how-to-make-an-intelligent-decision-about-which-standard-exception-to-throw position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some invalid argument logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above. Formal and Informal Fallacies There are several different ways in which fallacies may be categorised. It’s possible, for instance, to logic error invalid distinguish between formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal Fallacies (Deductive Fallacies) Philosophers distinguish between two types of argument: deductive and inductive. For each type of argument, there is a different understanding of what counts as a fallacy. Deductive arguments are supposed to be water-tight. For a deductive argument to be a good one (to be “valid”) it must be absolutely impossible for both its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. With a good deductive argument, that simply cannot happen; the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion. The classic example of a deductively valid argument is: (1) All men are mortal. (2) Socrates is a man. Therefore: (3) Socrates is mortal. It is simply not possible that both (1) and (2) are true and (3) is false, so this argument is deductively valid. Any deductive argument that fails to meet this (very high) standard commits a logical error, and so, technically, is fallacious. This includes many arguments that we would usually accept as good arguments, arguments that make their conclusions highly probable, but not certain. Arguments of this kind, arguments that aren’t deductively valid, are s
here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta Discuss the workings and policies of this site About Us Learn more about Stack Overflow the company Business Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us Stack Overflow Questions Jobs Documentation Tags Users Badges Ask Question x Dismiss Join the Stack Overflow Community Stack Overflow is a community of 6.2 million programmers, just like you, helping each other. Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up How to make an intelligent decision about which standard exception to throw? up vote 11 down vote favorite 4 We know that the exception class has two derived classes: logic_error and runtime_error. logic_error has four derived classes: domain_error, invalid_argument, length_error and out_of_range. runtime_error has three derived classes: range_error, overflow_error and underflow_error. While some of them are self-explanatory, like overflow_error and underflow_error, some are not that clear, especially range_error, both MSDN and cplusplus just say "to report a range error", which is close to saying nothing, how it is different out_of_range and domain_error??? Another question is when I throw an exception, which one should I choose? For example, In reverse_string(char* s), which exception to throw when s is NULL? In float calc_ellipse_area(float a, float b), which to throw when a or b is <=0? Which to throw when a == b (strictly speaking, circle is not an ellipse!)? Finally, practically speaking, does it really matter if I throw an exception which is not correctly categorized? c++ exception-handling error-handling share|improve this question edited Oct 2 '11 at 4:57 Jonathan Leffler 440k62511824 asked Oct 2 '11 at 4:41 John Yang 615420 The most important part is that the errors make sense to you - and hopefully to anyone who will reuse your code. Som