These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18938280)

  • 1. The influence of argument structure on judgements of argument strength, function, and adequacy.
    Ricco RB
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2008 Apr; 61(4):641-64. PubMed ID: 18938280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The macrostructure of informal arguments: a proposed model and analysis.
    Ricco RB
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2003 Aug; 56(6):1021-51. PubMed ID: 12881169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Two kinds of reasoning.
    Rips LJ
    Psychol Sci; 2001 Mar; 12(2):129-34. PubMed ID: 11340921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Slippery slope arguments imply opposition to change.
    Haigh M; Wood JS; Stewart AJ
    Mem Cognit; 2016 Jul; 44(5):819-36. PubMed ID: 26886759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Do incompatible arguments cause extensive processing in the evaluation of arguments? The role of congruence between argument compatibility and argument quality.
    Liu CH; Lee HW; Huang PS; Chen HC; Sommers S
    Br J Psychol; 2016 Feb; 107(1):179-98. PubMed ID: 25966342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Why is logic so likeable? A single-process account of argument evaluation with logic and liking judgments.
    Hayes BK; Wei P; Dunn JC; Stephens RG
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2020 Apr; 46(4):699-719. PubMed ID: 31343253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Argument Quality in Real World Argumentation.
    Hahn U
    Trends Cogn Sci; 2020 May; 24(5):363-374. PubMed ID: 32298622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies.
    Hahn U; Oaksford M
    Psychol Rev; 2007 Jul; 114(3):704-32. PubMed ID: 17638503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The relevance framework for category-based induction: Evidence from garden-path arguments.
    Feeney A; Coley JD; Crisp A
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2010 Jul; 36(4):906-19. PubMed ID: 20565209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cultural differences in belief bias associated with deductive reasoning?
    Unsworth SJ; Medin DL
    Cogn Sci; 2005 Jul; 29(4):525-9. PubMed ID: 21702783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Judging the implications of a concession: Conversational distance and belief bias effects.
    Ricco RB; Sierra A
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2016; 69(6):1129-44. PubMed ID: 26183024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Devil is in the Framework. Comment on Mizrahi vs. all Debate on the Strength of Arguments from an Expert Opinion.
    MakuĊ‚a S
    Philosophia (Ramat Gan); 2022; 50(4):1999-2013. PubMed ID: 35469246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluating science arguments: evidence, uncertainty, and argument strength.
    Corner A; Hahn U
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2009 Sep; 15(3):199-212. PubMed ID: 19751071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Similarity, plausibility, and judgments of probability.
    Smith EE; Shafir E; Osherson D
    Cognition; 1993; 49(1-2):67-96. PubMed ID: 8287675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance.
    Oaksford M; Hahn U
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2004 Jun; 58(2):75-85. PubMed ID: 15285597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The effect of a reason's truth-value on the judgment of a fallacious argument.
    Neuman Y; Glassner A; Weinstock M
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2004 Jun; 116(2):173-84. PubMed ID: 15158181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The effects of integrating instrumental and affective arguments in rhetorical and testimonial health messages.
    Keer M; van den Putte B; de Wit J; Neijens P
    J Health Commun; 2013; 18(9):1148-61. PubMed ID: 23659225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Raising argument strength using negative evidence: a constraint on models of induction.
    Heussen D; Voorspoels W; Verheyen S; Storms G; Hampton JA
    Mem Cognit; 2011 Nov; 39(8):1496-507. PubMed ID: 21604094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Discounting testimony with the argument ad hominem and a Bayesian congruent prior model.
    Bhatia JS; Oaksford M
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2015 Sep; 41(5):1548-59. PubMed ID: 26147667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A hypothesis-assessment model of categorical argument strength.
    McDonald J; Samuels M; Rispoli J
    Cognition; 1996 May; 59(2):199-217. PubMed ID: 8681511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.