I’m in a Logic class and this seems like a really simple concept but all the explanations given are so wordy that I can’t wrap my head around it.
In: Other
A valid argument is where the premises necessitate the conclusion. This means that if the premises are true, it would impossible for the conclusion to be false.
An example of a valid argument is this:
* P1: Spot is a dog
* P2: All dogs can fly
* C: Spot can fly.
There is no way that the conclusion can be false if the premises are true. If all dogs can fly, then spot cannot be a dog which does not fly. That is simply not possible according to the argument.
As I am sure you notice, the argument overall is wrong. Dogs cannot fly. However, that does not matter when determining the validity of the argument. Validity only cares if the formation of the argument makes sense, not the accuracy of the argument. The above argument is valid, but it is not sound.
The following is an invalid argument:
* P1: Spot is a dog
* P2: Spot cannot fly
* C: All dogs cannot fly
Nothing individually I say here is wrong. However, the formation of the argument is not valid. It is true that Spot is a dog that cannot fly. However, just because one dog cannot fly, you cannot conclude that all dogs cannot fly. Although the conclusion is correct, the argument to get the conclusion is not valid.
You can make the argument valid by saying this instead:
* P1: Spot cannot fly
* P2: All dogs have the same flying ability as Spot
* C: All dogs cannot fly.
This argument is now valid because the conclusion is made necessary from the premises. The conclusion cannot possibly be wrong if we assume the premises are true.
Latest Answers