Quality of communication lies on the ability to encode and decode series of organized sentences. Over time, the society has internalize symbolic interpretation of these arguments and assume that every premise connotes logic at macro-level. However, in the process, parties applying figures of speech have sneaked in fallacies when balancing proportional calculus of combined ‘logical’ arguments.
Universally, societies have fashioned categorical syllogism which comprises of two proportions, that is, the major and minor term connoted differently in symbols ranging from lambda, beta, and sometimes alphabetical letters such as P and Q.
These parts are dependent on assumptions and exist as precedent and antecedent of the other. In application, these parts functions on the facets of substitution-instance of what the parties consider simple or compound in consent application. Indefinitely, all arguments irrespective of their logicality, have complex interior motives occurring as an argument itself.
Referring to the assertion of argument as a result of consensus, it might not usually be the case, especially when validity testing is dependent upon assumptions and truths.
Factually, the proportional calculus is a product of substitution-instance in generalization and quantification of what the society considers as logic irrespective of hidden fallacies surrounding the limits of the decision procedure. Is there an independent approach rather than the universality assumptions?
To address this concern, I would introduce the term modus ponens which tests validity of premises in an argument as independent of each other. This system applies truth meters constructed overtime by validity inference modules affirming the consequent. When properly applied, the hidden fallacy can be separated since not all logical arguments have quantifiable truth element in them.
Thus, the active and passive premises can only be matched when at the end; substitution-instance affirms their syllogism and not mere antecedent denial. From a derived hypothetical syllogism, an affirming alternative is achievable away from the fallacy of universal generalization through consensus.
In order to create standard argument, generalization should be deactivated to give room for proactive reasoning away from the comfort of mood and figure. Though these concepts are technical in premise generation, overuse, misuse, and assumption often render their functionality to manipulation.
Rather than universal generalization, systematic labeling of the first-figure syllogism as a predicate of the next, and the next to yet another should be subject to multiplicity before a conclusion is arrived at. Even though this process is not designed only to demonstrate invalidity, it is of essence to differentiate truth from logicality as fallacies could be hidden in what the society perceives as logical when the invent ability is inactive.
Even though a syllogism arrangement might appear valid, and is actually true; on the premise orientation, conclusion draw might be inconsistent with the truth meter. Fortunately, invention of the Venn diagram has presented an excellent alternative for syllogism validation.
Irrespective of the form of argument, such as inductive and deductive, comprehensive thesis establishment depends on the underlying truths and hidden fallacies. Merely encoding or decoding a ‘sound argument’ is void of persuasive reasoning force on the side of either of the parties.
From the above analysis, it is inherent that not all arguments are a fallacy of neither consensus nor assumptions. Instead, they are a product of articulation functioning on the facets of reasoning.
Conclusively, an argument is valid when the plausibility is factual and operating within antecedent and quantifiable premises.
When a set of syllogism proportions are not simultaneously right, despite their independence of one another, the result is an inconsistent and incompatible contradiction of what was initially plausible like in this case where universal generalization due to consensus overshadows consistency, premise-conclusion relationship, and comparability.
It is inappropriate to adopt a generalization approach as a universal measure of truth, which is different from logicality.