The definition argument has two areas of major concern: 1) the

Definition of parameters to answer the question "What is this?" "Which category do you belong to?" In other words, when defining parameters, the basic characteristics of that category are shared, so they are assigned to larger categories Yes. Please check the following definition declaration.

Please note that this claim asserts that a certain case, the pig farm, belongs to the category of agricultural practices with poor environmental conditions. The infrastructure that plays a role in defining claims can be described as x representing y, x representing a specific case and y representing a larger category.

To define parameters, you need to generate a list of basic criteria for y items (categories). Therefore, the basic criteria for agricultural practices with inappropriate environmental conditions are as follows.

Pig farms are environmentally friendly agriculture to destroy the environment. This is a serious injury, posing a danger to local wildlife and threatening human health.

Since the underlying structure of the enzyme that defines the parameters has the characteristics A, B, C, D, ..., x can be expressed as y.

There are two main areas of interest when defining arguments. 1) criteria and whether they are sufficient to characterize the y term (category), 2) whether a match, or x term (specific case) actually has a reference

As the above example focuses on standards, there is a doubt as to whether it is necessary to characterize environmentally friendly agricultural practice categories with "serious or irreversible" damage. Perhaps we can say that any damage constitutes a poor way of cultivation of cultivation. At the moment, in standard explanation x terms (pig farm) are not considered. Instead, the focus of the standard discussion is to accurately characterize the term (category) of y.

On the other hand, I am interested in proof that this standard applies to the x term (pig farm) during the definition of the matching part of the argument. We are obliged to prove that hog farms are harmful to the environment. This harm is serious, threatens wildlife areas and poses a health risk to neighboring people.

Under the definition of the term, this section and the next section contain two different but related concepts. One is to clearly define the content of arguments (the focus of this section). Terms use them (concerns in the next section). The important point here is that arguments are not useful until you know exactly what the problem is. In some discussions, the central requirement is sufficiently clear that the second requirement (which defines important terms) may not be necessary (but as you can see, this It is not something people should forgive). Discussion, especially in documents and oral reports, the first requirement is absolutely necessary.

First, in this case, we can distinguish between two types of proofs. (1) logical discussion and (2) empirical proof. Throughout the controversy, we refer to a series of propositions or premises that signify definite conclusions by formal logic rules, or a series of propositions (ie probability theory) that increases the probability that a conclusion is true. Through demonstration, we mean that Plato will try to bring insight into our consciousness of waking up in ways other than logical arguments. In many cases of Plato, this is equivalent to remembering previously known or potential knowledge (never forgotten or remembered). For example, we previously considered how Plato's idea of ​​the form of good at Seminar No. 211-212 is seen as proof of the existence of God. Likewise, several clauses of Plato seem to evoke the reader's sense of experience in the immortality of the soul.