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.
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.
For an argument to be valid, it means that if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. Validity has to do with the form of the argument. If one or more of the premises are not true, that does not mean the argument isn't valid. Soundness means that the argument is valid, and all of it's premises are true. It's a little redundant to say "both valid and sound", because if your argument is sound, then it must be valid. It is important for an argument to be not just valid, but also sound, in order for it to be convincing.
Valid arguments must include facts and supporting documentation in order to strengthen the validity. If not, then the argument can be challenged.
No, but it can be unsound and valid.
It describes two kinds of argument in logic. A sound argument is valid (logically coherent) and its premises are true. And unsound argument is not sound.
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.
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.
Yes, a deductive argument can have false premises. However, the conclusion does not follow logically if the premises are false, making the argument unsound.
No, a valid deductive argument cannot have a false conclusion. If the argument is valid, it means that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. If the conclusion is false, it means that the argument is not valid.
An argument is valid if the conclusion follows logically from the premises. In a valid argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. This can be determined by evaluating the logical structure of the argument.
No, but all sound arguments are valid arguments. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the premises. A sound argument is a valid argument where the premises are accepted as true.
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.
For an argument to be valid, it means that if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. Validity has to do with the form of the argument. If one or more of the premises are not true, that does not mean the argument isn't valid. Soundness means that the argument is valid, and all of it's premises are true. It's a little redundant to say "both valid and sound", because if your argument is sound, then it must be valid. It is important for an argument to be not just valid, but also sound, in order for it to be convincing.
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.
Yes, a valid argument can still be weak if the premises provided are not strong or relevant enough to support the conclusion. Validity refers to the logical structure of an argument, while the strength of an argument refers to the quality and persuasiveness of the premises.
Valid means that the argument leads to a true conclusion, given that its premises are true, but if an argument is valid that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is correct, as its premises may be wrong. A sound argument, on the other hand, in addition to being valid all of its premises are true and hence its conclusion is also true.
An example of a valid argument is: "All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." This argument is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises.