Reasons for believing?

[OldTrees]

Incorrect. Any information not in your conclusion is not lost. You can always save it for later.
You misread what I said. I do not waste words. There was a qualifier to my statement that you glossed over. If something is not in the conclusion then it is lost with respect to the conclusion.

Saying some A are B and C only shows B and C are with A to some degree. It does not tell us if B and C intersect or not.
I described intersect in the PM.

Example:
All apples are colored
Some apples are big
therefore, some apples are big and colored(restating my premises as a conjuction)

I made no claim as to whether some red things are big yet. So the above conclusion gets me no where.
When you change the argument's form you change the argument. Now it is in the same form as my argument. You can see by stating there exists an apple that is big and colored, I can indeed conclude that some big things are colored. I can further conclude that some of these big colored things are apples. Furthermore, I can communicate both of these conclusions by saying there exist apples that are big and colored.

[Furby]

...I don't think you understand. If you don't state the relationship between B and C, then we don't know. That is like someone say 2+2=? I can assume they know it is 4 or that is what they wanted to derive, but they need to write it down. I cannot assume there is a relationship being made between Big things and Red things unless I say so. No assumptions please

If something is not in the conclusion then it is lost with respect to the conclusion. Seems like we will be disagreeing here until you provide support for your claim. I have already told you modern day logic is my support

[OldTrees]

...I don't think you understand. If you don't state the relationship between B and C, then we don't know. That is like someone say 2+2=? I can assume they know it is 4 or that is what they wanted to derive, but they need to write it down. I cannot assume there is a relationship being made between Big things and Red things unless I say so. No assumptions please

I am confused as to why "There exists something that is big and colored" is a valid conclusion but "There exists an apple that is big and colored" is not. I did not remove information. I did not change the grammar of the sentence. The apple part is supported by the premises.

Or is your problem with the conclusion "There exists something that is big and colored"? This is a verification of a possibility and thus a valuable conclusion.

If something is not in the conclusion then it is lost with respect to the conclusion. Seems like we will be disagreeing here until you provide support for your claim. I have already told you modern day logic is my support

[/quote] I doubt we disagree. You say information not in the conclusion remains in the previous steps. I say information not in the conclusion is not in the conclusion. (Evidence: A->A is true) Now perhaps you cannot see the value in having more information in your conclusion. However I can point to the beginning of this thread where a lot of time was wasted because my initial conclusion did not have enough information in it.

[Furby]

A conclusion in logic is different from a conclusion in a research paper. Papers will usually go over a summary of pre-existing material to help bring them back together in your mind as well as restate your thesis as proof from the summary, proven from all the other material in your paper.

In logic, it is more like a math problem:

2+2+3+5+x=2x+7-15
I can simply this expression one term at a time and end up at a conclusion. There is no need for me though to repeat the original problem.

Also,

Some red things are apples
Some apples are big
therefore, some red things are apples and some and some red things are big (restating my premises as a conjuction)

I made no claim as to whether some red things are big yet. So the above conclusion gets me no where.

What I should say, inductively, is: therefore, some red things are big things.

To say apples and big things are encompassed in our circle of red things is pointless. I already showed that by stating the premises. So, what is the point of me saying some R are A and then Some A are B? To inductively conclude Some R are B.

To say:

"There exists an apple that is big and colored" is not

is pointless. No use in connecting premises in this case. That is like saying 2+2=4, 3+1=4, therefore (2+2) and (3+1) both make 4. That is dumb. I should say 2+2=3+1 therefore.

In short: 1) conclusion should only contain necessary information and should not repeat old information if you don't need it to and 2) restating premises by connecting them proves nothing. The point of an argument is to derive that which can be deductively/inductively reasoned out.

[OldTrees]

A conclusion in logic is different from a conclusion in a research paper.

Wait. Have you been referring to deductive logic rather than deductive argumentation? That is probably the majority of the clashing. The conclusion in a research paper is usually just a wordy version of a inductive argumentation conclusion(since that is what it is).

I am worried that you are getting too tied up in "How it is supposed to be" since you have already said that the form was valid(if premises are true then the conclusion is true). This sounds very much like you were given a list of examples and anything that doesn't match an example must be the wrong way to do it.

Our current disagreements are
1) How informative a conclusion should be.
I said that the most informative conclusion is the most useful. (Argumentation)
You said the correct conclusion is the most simple. (Logic course)

2) Whether A, B thus A&B is a useful conclusion.
I said it is useful especially since I am using it.
You said that the conclusion needs to be "Some A is B". Which not only doesn't follow but would not be useful to the position at hand.

Perhaps we should table this for now while we address the topic in the PMs.

[Furby]

I will PM you then.

Back on topic: New idea:

Most people who claim to be mormons or Muslims are usually have no choice and therefore believe. Thoughts?

[neuroleptics]

I will PM you then.

Back on topic: New idea:

Most people who claim to be mormons or Muslims are usually have no choice and therefore believe. Thoughts?

like in my country, those born of a certain race are muslim since birth. No choice, nothing. But some other parts of world, you are free to choose your beliefs.