Valid Arguments

Definition

A valid argument is one in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. In other words, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. The validity of an argument is determined by its logical structure, not the actual truth of the premises or conclusion.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Valid arguments can have false premises, but the conclusion will still necessarily follow if the argument is logically structured correctly.
2. The validity of an argument is not affected by the actual truth or falsity of the premises or conclusion, only by the logical form of the argument.
3. Validity is a property of the logical structure of an argument, while soundness requires both validity and true premises.
4. Deductive arguments, if valid, guarantee the truth of the conclusion given that the premises are true.
5. Inductive arguments, even if strong, cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion, only make it more or less probable.

Review Questions

• Explain how the validity of an argument is determined, and how it differs from the actual truth of the premises and conclusion.
  • The validity of an argument is determined solely by its logical structure, not the actual truth or falsity of the premises or conclusion. A valid argument is one where the conclusion necessarily follows from the given premises, even if the premises are false. This means that if the premises of a valid argument are true, the conclusion must also be true. Validity is a property of the logical form of the argument, whereas the truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion is a separate consideration.
• Distinguish between valid and sound arguments, and explain the role of deductive and inductive reasoning in each.
  • A valid argument is one where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, regardless of whether the premises are true or false. A sound argument, on the other hand, is both valid and has true premises, guaranteeing the truth of the conclusion. Deductive reasoning, if valid, can produce sound arguments where the conclusion is certain given true premises. Inductive reasoning, even if strong, cannot produce sound arguments, as the conclusion is only probable based on the evidence, not certain. The validity of an argument depends on its logical structure, while the soundness of an argument requires both valid logic and true premises.
• Analyze how the concepts of valid arguments and truth relate to the philosophical question of how philosophers arrive at truth.
  • The concept of valid arguments is central to how philosophers arrive at truth. Philosophers often use deductive reasoning to construct valid arguments, where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. If the premises of a valid argument are true, the conclusion must also be true. However, arriving at true premises is a separate challenge, and philosophers must carefully examine the evidence and reasoning behind their premises. Even valid arguments with false premises do not guarantee truth. Philosophers must also consider inductive reasoning, which can provide strong evidence for a conclusion without the certainty of deductive validity. Ultimately, the pursuit of truth in philosophy involves a balance of valid logical reasoning and the careful examination of premises to ensure sound arguments that reliably lead to true conclusions.

Related terms

Soundness:

A sound argument is one that is both valid and has true premises. A sound argument guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

Deductive Reasoning:

A form of reasoning where the conclusion is derived logically from the premises, and the conclusion necessarily follows if the premises are true.

Inductive Reasoning:

A form of reasoning where the conclusion is based on observed patterns or evidence, but does not necessarily follow with certainty from the premises.