Abstract
Ss assessed the validity of syllogisms varying in affective loading, quantification, and validity. Syllogisms with existential conclusions resulted in more errors than syllogisms with universal conclusions, and more invalid syllogisms were incorrectly accepted than were valid ones incorrectly rejected. This difference was greatest for existential arguments with positive affect.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Paper version not known
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
