درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The purpose of this study was designing a model of financial flexibility functions for industrial infrastructure development of َAbadan oil refining com In this study,12 financial management specialists at the university level and the company participated as panel members in the quality department. In fact, in the qualitative part, which used Meta-synthesis and Delphi analysis, the aim was to identify the propositions of financial flexibility functions for the development of industrial infrastructure, and then in a small part with the participation of 18 managers and deputies of Abadan Oil Refining Company, Findings: Therefore, relying on meta-synthesis, first 14 studies were reviewed as a basis for evaluation to determine the themes of the statements of financial flexibility functions for the development of industrial infrastructure in the form of critical evaluation, based on which, 24 themes of selected propositions were entered into Delphi analysis in a checklist manner to determine the theoretical adequacy. In this stage, 4 propositions were removed during the two stages of Delphi analysis and a total of 20 propositions entered the quantitative analysis section, ie Total Interpretive Structural Modelling. In this section, the results show the themes of the statements of financial agility in the development of industrial infrastructure (P12); Reduction of financial constraints in providing resources for industrial infrastructure development (P17) and dynamics of evaluation of industrial infrastructure development plans (P18) were selected as the last level of the most effective reasons for financial flexibility for industrial infrastructure development in Abadan Oil Refining Company.

The doctrine that the content of the conclusion of a deductively valid argument is included in the content of its premises, taken jointly, is a familiar one. It has important consequences for the question of what value valid arguments possess, since it indicates the poverty of three traditional answers: that arguments may and should be used as instruments of persuasion, that they may and should be used as instruments of justification; and that they may and should be used to advance knowledge. The truth is, however, that in each of these cases the argument has only a managerial role and, if there is any work done, it is the premises that do it. It will be maintained that this point has little force against the critical rationalist answer, which I shall defend, that the principal purpose of deductive reasoning from an assemblage of premises is the exploration of their content, facilitating their criticism and rejection. That said, the main aim of the present paper is not to promote critical rationalism but to consider some published objections to the doctrine that a statement asserts every statement that is validly deducible from it. The alleged counterexamples to be considered fall roughly into two groups: statements that emerge with time from a rich mathematical or empirical theory, but were originally unformulated and are deducible from the theory only in a non-trivial way (Frederick 2011, 2014; Williamson 2012); and statements, notably disjunctions, that are easily formulated and are deducible from a theory in a trivial way (Schurz & Weingartner 1987; Mura 1990, 2008; Gemes 1994; Yablo 2014). Each of these counterexamples will be evaluated and dismissed.