Which term best describes a proof in which you assume the the contrary of what you want to prove? a. Evidence by syllogism b. Proof by train station c. Evidence by contradiction d. Proof by contrapositive
The answer of the above question is letter C. Proof by contradiction. That is a form of proving wherein the proof does not assistance the reverse assumption crediting the original statement as true. This proof can additionally be referred as "reductio advertisement absurdum" which space Latin word for "reduced to an absurdity" 

B. Proof by contradiction

Step-by-step explanation:

A proof by contradiction says the truth of a given statement by the assuming the it is false and following by recognize a conclusion the is inconsistent to the provided proposition that is proven to it is in true.

You are watching: Which term best describes a proof in which you assume the opposite of what you want to prove

Hence, the term best describes a proof in which we assume the contrary of what we want to prove is "Proof by contradiction ".


Contradictory Statement

Step-by-step explanation:

In inconsistent statement , us basically explains a proof by assuming opposite of what we want to prove .


For example :

Prove that is irrational .

Solution :

We will prove this by contradiction .

Let if feasible is rational .

where p and q are integers and coprime such the

*

On squaring both sides , us get

*

we acquire ,

p=2r

On squaring both sides, we get

*

So, 2 divides p and also q i m sorry is a contradiction to the truth that p and also are coprime .

Therefore, is irrational .


Indirect.

Real-life example: A jury starts with the assumption that the defendant is no guilty. Proof is introduced that contradicts the assumption.


The Latin expression is "reduction ad absurd um", an interpretation reduction come absurdity. You i think the opposite and show the logically it leader to a contradiction and therefore can not be true.

See more: Standing By Disputed Quote On Gun Behind Every Blade Of Grass

Hope this helps.


A proof where you assume the the opposite of what you desire to prove is usually known as a inconsistent proof. I hope this answer help you, and if it does feel cost-free to give me a rate and also a thanks