0
Yes, deductively sound arguments are also deductively valid. An argument is sound if and only if all of the premises are true (with respect to all cases of semantics) and the premises certainly prove the conclusion, which then must also be true.
An example of a valid, but not sound argument:
Everyone who lives on Mars is a martian
I live on Mars
Therefore I am a martian
An example of a sound argument (which then must also be valid):
All rodents are mammals
A rat is a rodent
Therefore a rat is a rodent
Recall that semantics are important and must be considered for an argument to sound and valid. Consider the following example:
Everyone from London is from England
Person A is from London
Therefore person A is from England
For the sake of this example, assume person A is indeed from London. This still does not mean that this argument is sound, or even valid. There are many places named London that are not in England (eg. London, Ontario, Canada). Thus, the argument is not sound and is invalid.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Yes, deductively sound arguments are deductively valid. A deductively valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. If the argument is deductively valid and the premises are also true, then the argument is sound.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
All valid arguments are sound arguments?
This statement is not correct. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises, regardless of whether the premises are true or not. A sound argument, on the other hand, is a valid argument with true premises. So, while all sound arguments are valid, not all valid arguments are sound.
Are some fallacious inductive arguments sound?
No, fallacious inductive arguments are not sound. Sound arguments must be valid and have true premises, but fallacious arguments contain errors in reasoning that make them unsound.
Is it true that valid arguments are said to be strong or weak?
Valid arguments are not described as strong or weak. Validity refers to the logical structure of an argument - if the premises logically lead to the conclusion. An argument can be valid but still weak if the premises are not well-supported or sound.
Are all valid arguments cogent arguments?
No, not all valid arguments are cogent. A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, while a cogent argument is a valid argument with true premises. In other words, cogent arguments are a subset of valid arguments.
What you learned from fallacies?
I learned that fallacies are flawed reasoning that can lead to incorrect conclusions. They can distort arguments, mislead people, and undermine the accuracy of critical thinking. It is important to be able to identify and avoid fallacies in order to make sound and valid arguments.
What is deductively valid argument?
A deductively valid argument is if the premises are true then the conclusion is certainly true, not possibly true. The definition does not say that the conclusion is true.
What is deductive validity?
A deductively valid argument is if the premises are true then the conclusion is certainly true, not possibly true. The definition does not say that the conclusion is true.
What is the difference between induction and deduction?
Generally this is how the concept of Induction and Deduction will move * Induction - particular to general. * Deduction - general to particular. However this is actually untrue. Either arguments starting with or ending with a Partcular or generalisation. An argument that is Deductively invalid can be Inductively valid. Eg; Inductivley valid, but Deductively invalid. (Particular) My apple is red Your apple is red (General) All apples are red (General) If something is red, it is a Tomato. Your car is red (Particular) Your car is also a Tomato Obviously untrue statements, however to constitute as Inductively valid one must only display a logical correlation of concepts. Eg; Deductively valid. (General) If you don't have a ticket you can't ride the bus. You don't have a ticket. (Particular)so, you can't ride the bus. ...maybe read the Wikipedia page too! Its hard to define but easy to understand.
All valid arguments are sound arguments?
This statement is not correct. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises, regardless of whether the premises are true or not. A sound argument, on the other hand, is a valid argument with true premises. So, while all sound arguments are valid, not all valid arguments are sound.
Does any body know what are the strengths and weaknesses of the pragmatic argument?
All sound arguments are valid, but not all valid arguments are sound.
Is it true that valid arguments are said to be strong or weak?
Valid arguments are not described as strong or weak. Validity refers to the logical structure of an argument - if the premises logically lead to the conclusion. An argument can be valid but still weak if the premises are not well-supported or sound.
How would you reply to strongs arguments?
No, arguments can either be strong or weak, however, a valid argument would be considered a sound argument. The opposite would be an invalid argument.
How would you reply to josiah strong arguments?
No, arguments can either be strong or weak, however, a valid argument would be considered a sound argument. The opposite would be an invalid argument.
A valid argument can have a false conclusion True or False?
True. A valid argument can have a false conclusion if the premises logically lead to that conclusion even though it is not true. Validity in logic refers to the structure of the argument, regardless of the truth or falsity of the premises or conclusion.
What should inductive arguments never be characterized as?
Inductive arguments should never be characterized as guaranteeing truth or absolute certainty. This is because inductive reasoning relies on specific examples to draw general conclusions, which are probabilistic and open to revision based on new evidence.
What would be the right way to define valid?
Well grounded; just: a valid objection.Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.Logic. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.Archaic. Of sound health; robust.validity va·lid'i·ty or val'id·nessn.validly val'id·ly adv.SYNONYMS valid, sound, cogent, convincing.These adjectives describe assertions, arguments, conclusions, reasons, or intellectual processes that are persuasive because they are well founded. What is valid is based on or borne out by truth or fact or has legal force: a valid excuse; a valid claim. What is sound is free from logical flaws or is based on valid reasoning: a sound theory; sound principles.Something cogent is both sound and compelling: cogent testimony; a cogent explanation. Convincing implies the power to dispel doubt or overcome resistance or opposition: convincing proof.
What are Truth Validity and Soundness?
Truth refers to a statement that accurately reflects reality, validity refers to a logical relationship between the premises and conclusion in an argument, and soundness refers to an argument that is valid and has true premises.
