LOGICAL PHILOSOPHY HELP! lol. validity of an argument =)?

Question

Would someone help me answer these, please, I beg of you!

• Can an argument be valid but not sound?
• Can an argument be sound but not valid?
• Can valid arguments have false premises?
• Can valid arguments have false conclusions?
• Can sound arguments have false premises?
• Can sound arguments have false conclusions?

Thanks

Answer 1

For an argument to be valid, the form must be correct...AND THAT'S IT...premises and conclusions can be false as long as it follows argumentative form.



For an argument to be sound, all statements must be true. (premises and conclusions)



For it to be sound AND valid, premises and conclusions must be true, and must follow the argumentative form. Hope this helps, Good luck



All but your bottom two are correct; reasoning above.



To the responders who contest that number 2 is no, peruse the example:



Mitch is a cat

All cats are mammals

Therefore, Mitch is a mammal



This argument follows the argumentative form of:



A is B

All B are C

Therefore, A must be C-----This is Valid and sound



To make it sound but not valid (like number 2),

I will keep the truth value of the premises but switch the form:



Mitch is a cat

Some cats eat vegetables

Therefore, Mitch eats vegetables



As you can see, it doesn't necessarily follow that Mitch eats vegetables just because some cats do. This clearly shows the form is INVALID, meanwhile all premises and conclusions can be true at once. Your welcome

Answer 2

1-2)Based on MS Word's definitions, I'd say that a sound argument is one that is well supported. Like a building that is structurally sound, it won't easily collapse. A valid argument is one that is, or at least seems, "logical" and "justifiable." A sound argument is therefore the result of a great deal of induction - or facts and/or evidence - followed by some deduction - or assertions derived from the evidence; and a valid argument may be anywhere between that and an argument comprised mostly of deduction based on a small amount of induction.



This being the case, a sound argument will tend to be valid, but a valid argument could have little enough foundation to be unsound.



3-4) "Valid" is only relative. A valid argument can have false premises if the basis for the argument is an abridgement of the truth or even a somewhat believable untruth but inspite of having false inductions, all of the deductions are logical and proper. And of course, if one makes a proper argument based on false premises, the conclusion ought to be false as well.



5-6) If an argument is sound, it will generally be based on a substantial amount of truthful evidence such that if any untruthful evidence were used, it would stand out and be discarded. A sound argument is a valid argument that cannot be based on false premises or have false conclusions.

Answer 3

3. no valid arguement cant have false premises( you assume premises are true but i think they have to be true)

4 yes they can have false conclusions



idk the rest havent learned about sound.

Answer 4

sure, that's speculative. that doesn't imply to declare that philosophy is ineffective or unrewarding. It only means that it is not understanding via direct experience. to illustrate, Buddha speculated with regard to the potential for Enlightenment.. in the previous getting all the way down to realize it. in the previous enlightenment he grew to become right into a certainty seeker.. after enlightenment he not mandatory to take a position. He only knew.

Answer 5

yes

no

yes

yes

no

no



Your second answerer is an idiot. I wonder if that perspective is just as valid to them?

Answer 6

They're all YES . All perspectives are valid and equal – true...