invalid
In invalid argument is one in which the premises do not necessitate the truth of the conclusion. An argument's validity or invalidity does NOT depend on the actual truth of the premises, just what they would entail IF they are true.
the invalid argument is argument which is not based on any justification to justify the argument. Whereas, unsound argument is based on little justification but does not fully match with the ground on which the argument is based
A valid argument is certainly stronger than an invalid argument. but an argument can be valid and still be relatively weak. Validity and strength are not the same, although they are both good features for an argument to have.
An invalid argument is when the facts you are using are invalid or your forms of defense are wrong or incorrect, a valid argument is the opposite of an invalid argument. "There is a windmill in my beard. your argument is invalid." (This is a good example of a bad contradiction)
The argument denying the antecedent is invalid.
An argument is said to be formally valid if it is valid in virtue of its form. For example, the argumentAll men are mortal.Socrates is a man.Therefore, Socrates is mortal.is formally valid because its validity does not depend on its content (plug in any predicates [some limitations apply], the argument will still be valid). E.g.All pigs can fly.Wilbur is a pig.Therefore, Wilbur can fly.(Valid, but not sound, since the first premise is false!)Now, material validity is different in that arguments are valid but not in virtue of their form. Recall that validity is defined as 'no possible valuation which makes the premises true and the conclusion false'. So the following argument is also valid:John had a nightmare.Therefore, John had a dream.If you formalise this argument, it would be "Fa, so Ga", which is invalid (or following Alex Oliver's terminology, impure, for it has both valid and invalid instances). So there seems to be a gap between validity and formal validity (i.e. not all valid arguments are formally valid). That's what Buridan called 'material validity'.
An argument that is invalid is one where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. A sound argument is one that is valid and has true premises. So, by definition, an argument cannot be both invalid and sound at the same time because for an argument to be sound it must be valid.
A valid argument becomes invalid when it contains a logical fallacy, such as a false premise or faulty reasoning. Additionally, if the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises provided, the argument is considered invalid.
An argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. It is invalid if the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
your argument is invalid
In a categorical syllogism, a valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, regardless of whether the premises are true. In contrast, an invalid argument is one where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, meaning that even if the premises are true, the conclusion could still be false. Validity is concerned solely with the structure of the argument, while truth pertains to the actual content of the premises.
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.