[...]... useful to compare the argument of Problem 2.8 with the deductive arguments of Problem 2.6 In no context would any of these latter inferences require additional premises 'some authors define logical impossibility as violation of the laws of logic, but this presupposes some fixed conception of logical laws Typically, these are taken to be the logical truths of formal predicate logic (see Chapter 6) But since... distinction on the basis of the purported o r intended strength of the reasoning his is a matter of controversy According to some theories of inductive logic it is possible for the conclusion of an argument to be false while its premises are true and yet for the inductive probability of the argument to be 1 (See R Carnap, Logical Foundations of Probability, 2d edn, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1962.)... series of integers is infinite.] (22) . the basis of the purported or intended strength of the reasoning. his is a matter of controversy. According to some theories of inductive logic it is possible for the conclusion of an argument. conclusion. This intention is often expressed by the use of inference indicatovs. Inference indicators are words or phrases used to signal the presence of an argument. They are of two kinds: conclusion. of integers. Pi is not expressible as a ratio of integers. :. Pi is not a rational number. Pi is a number. . There exists at least one nonrational number. Each of the simple steps of