http://training.criticalthinkeracademy.

com/lecture/8721/3-valid-versus-invalidarguments

3. Valid vs Invalid Arguments

An argument has to satisfy the Logic Condition in order for it to qualify as a
good argument. But there are two importantly different ways in which an
argument can satisfy the Logic Condition.
One way is if the argument is valid. Another way is if the argument
is strong.
"Validity" and "strength" are technical terms that logicians and philosophers
use to describe the logical "glue" that binds premises and conclusions
together. Valid arguments have the strongest logical glue possible.
In this lecture we're going to talk about "validity" and the difference between
"valid" versus "invalid" arguments. In the next lecture we'll talk about
"strength" and the difference between "strong" versus "weak" arguments.
Together, these two concepts, validity and strength, will help us to specify
precisely what it means for an argument to satisfy the Logic Condition.

Valid vs Invalid
We've seen valid arguments before. Recall the Tom Cruise argument:
1. All actors are robots.
2. Tom Cruise is an actor.
Therefore, Tom Cruise is a robot.
This is an example of a valid argument.

Here's the standard definition of a valid argument:

An argument is VALID if it has the following hypothetical or
conditional property:
IF all the premises are true, then the conclusion CANNOT be false.
In this case we know that in fact the first premise is false (not all actors are
robots) but the argument is still valid because IF the premises were true it
would be IMPOSSIBLE for the conclusion to be false.
In other words, in a hypothetical world where all actors are robots, and Tom
Cruise also happens to be an actor, then it's logically impossible for Tom
Cruise NOT to be a robot.
THAT is the distinctive property of this argument that we're pointing to when
we call it valid that it's logically impossiblefor the premises to be true
and the conclusion false. Or to put it another way, the truth of the
premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
These are all different ways of saying the same thing. Validity is the
strongest possible logical glue you can have between premises and
conclusion.
Here's an example of an INVALID argument:
1. All actors are robots.
2. Tom Cruise is a robot.
Therefore, Tom Cruise is an actor.
The first premise is the same, "All actors are robots". But the second
premise is different. Instead of assuming that Tom Cruise is an actor, we're
assuming that Tom Cruise is a robot.

Now, if these premises are both true, does it follow that Tom Cruise HAS to
be an actor? No, it does not follow. It would follow if we said that ONLY
actors are robots, but the first premise doesn't say that.
All we can assume is that in this hypothetical world, anyone in the acting
profession is a robot, but robots might be doing lots of different jobs besides
acting. They might be mechanics or teachers or politicians or whatever. So
in this hypothetical world the fact that Tom Cruise is a robot doesn't
guarantee that he's also an actor.
And THAT is what makes this an invalid argument.
An argument is INVALID just in case it's NOT VALID.
What this means is that even if all the premises are true, it's still possible for
the conclusion to be false. The truth of the premises doesn't guarantee the
truth of the conclusion.
That's ALL it means to call an argument "invalid".
In particular, it doesn't imply that the argument is bad. As we'll see in
the next lecture, invalid arguments can still be good arguments. Even if
they don't guarantee the conclusion they can still give us good reasons to
believe the conclusion, so they can still satisfy the Logic Condition.
But like I said, we'll talk more about this later.

A Cautionary Note About the

Terminology
I'll end with a cautionary note about this terminology.

We're using the terms "valid" and "invalid" in a very specific technical sense
that is commonly used in logic and philosophy but not so common outside
of these fields.
As we all know in ordinary language the word "valid" is used in a bunch of
different ways. Like when we say "that contract is valid", meaning
something like the contract is legally legitimate or that it's executed with
proper legal authority.
Or when we say "You make a valid point", we mean that the point is
relevant or appropriate, or it has some justification behind it.
These are perfectly acceptable uses of the term "valid". But I just want to
emphasize that this isn't how we're using the term in logic when we're doing
argument analysis. It's important to keep the various meanings of "valid"
and "invalid" distinct so there's no confusion.
Note for example that when we use the terms valid and invalid in logic we're
talking about properties of whole arguments, not of individual claims.
If we're using the terms in the way we've defined them in this tutorial then it
makes NO SENSE to say that an individual premise or claim is valid or
invalid.
Validity is a property that describes the logical relationship between
premises and conclusions. It's a feature of arguments taken as a whole.
Still, it's very common for students who are new to logic to confuse the
various senses of valid and invalid, and make the mistake of describing a
premise as invalid when what they mean is simply that it's false or dubious.
So that's just a cautionary note about the terminology. If you keep the
logical definition clear in your mind then you shouldn't have a problem.

2. Invalid Forms Using OR

Lets talk about invalid argument forms that use OR.
Consider this example again:
1. Either youre with me or youre against me.
2. Youre not with me.
So, you must be against me.
This argument is valid, because the disjunction states that both of these
disjuncts cant be false, at least one of them must be true, so if you can
eliminate one then the remainder has to be true.
But what if I said something like this?
1. College teachers have to have either a Masters degree or a Ph.D.
2. Professor Smith has a Masters degree.
Therefore, he doesnt have a Ph.D.
Is THIS a valid argument?
It doesnt seem so. After all, why cant it be the case that Professor Smith
as BOTH a Masters AND a PhD? Generally this is the case, if you have
PhD then you also have a Masters degree, since having a Masters degree
is usually a prerequisite for attaining the PhD.
But if so, then this inference is clearly INVALID.
The general form of this invalid inference looks like this:
1. A or B
2. A
Therefore, not-B

In this form youre affirming that one of the disjuncts is true, and on the
basis of this, inferring that the remaining disjunct must be false.
In general, this is not a valid inference when its logically possible for the
two disjuncts to be true at the same time.
In other words, its invalid when the OR is an INCLUSIVE OR.
An inclusive OR is one that asserts that A is true, or B is true, OR BOTH
may be true. The only case that it rules out is the case where both are
FALSE.
Now, as you might expect, the case is different if the OR is exclusive.
Heres a clear example of an exclusive OR:
1. The coin landed heads or tails.
2. The coin landed heads.
Therefore, the coin did not land tails.
Here youre doing the same thing, youre affirming one of the disjuncts and
inferring that the remaining disjunct must be false.
But in this case the inference is VALID, since the OR is an exclusive or
it excludes the case where both of the disjuncts can be true.
So, this argument form
1. A or B
2. A
Therefore, not-B
is VALID when the OR is an exclusive OR.
Here are the OR forms side-by-side:
1. A or B

1. A or B

2. not-A

2. A

Therefore, B

Therefore, not-B

Always valid

Invalid if OR is inclusive,
valid if OR is exclusive

http://www.kslinker.com/VALID-AND-INVALID-ARGUMENTS.html

ALL ARGUMENTS CAN BE CLASSIFIED INTO TWO TYPES, VALID AND

INVALID.
In our class even inductive arguments will be considered a sub-type of invalid
arguments. The major difference between these two types of arguments is
explained in what follows.

Valid Arguments
If an argument is valid, then it meets the following criteria:

If all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
(In other words, the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed if all
the premises are true)
OR

It is impossible to have a false conclusion if all the premises

are true
OR

The premises of a valid argument entail the conclusion.

Conclusions deduced from a set of premises together with the premises themselves
form a valid argument.
Here are some common examples of valid arguments::
If John makes this field goal, then the U of A will win.
John makes the field goal .

Therefore the U of A wins

The Logical Name for this argument is Modus Ponens (this argument goes by other names as well, but this is
textbook)
If the patient has malaria, then a blood test will indicate that his blood harbors at least one of these parasites:
Blood test indicate that the patient harbors none of these parasites
Therefore the patient does not have malaria.
The Logical Name for this argument is Modus Tollens
Either The Patriots or the Philadelphia Eagles will win the Superbowl
The Patriots lost
Therefore The Eagles won

The Logical name for this argument is Disjunctive Syllogism, more commonly known as Process of Eliminati
If John gets a raise, then he will buy a house.
If John buys a house, he will run for a position on the neighborhood council.
Therefore, if John gets a raise, he will run for a position on the neighborhood council
The logical name for this argument is Hypothetical Syllogism

Invalid Arguments
If an argument is invalid, then it is possible for the conclusion to be false even if
all the premises are true.
Invalid arguments come in all sorts of flavors, and students of Logic should be
aware of the many different types.
One type of invalid argument is simply called a Logical Fallacy. These arguments
are instances of pseudo-reasoning. The conclusion of a logical fallacy either does
not depend on the truth of the premises at all (in such a case, we say the truth of the
conclusion is independent of the truth of the premises) or the conclusion only
follows very weakly from the premises. Unfortunately for those who are lovers of
reason, logical fallacies are simply everywhere and one of the major goals of this
class will be learning to recognize such fallacies when they occur.
Inductive arguments are another special case of invalid arguments - depending on
the case, many inductive arguments have quite strong conclusions. Inductive
arguments are not logical fallacies - since their conclusions are many times
strongly inferred from the premises, however inductive arguments do not guarantee
the truth of their conclusion, even if all of the premises are true (which makes them
invalid).
WE WILL SAY that conclusion(s) arrived at by induction are strongly or

weakly inferred from the premises.

The the conclusions of logical fallacies do not follow from the premises. By the
way, "non-sequitor" is the Latin term used to describe conclusion(s) which do not
follow from sets of premises!
Here are some examples:

Logical Fallacies
I have always liked Michael J. Fox, and
now his battle with Parkinson's disease is
really sobering.
He certainly is a man acquainted with grief.
He is also a vegetarian, therefore not eating
meat is probably not a good idea.

The conclusion is that one should not be a

vegetarian, which seems to take its strength
from the fact that Michael J. Fox is now not
healthy. In other words, there is an innuendo
(which is disguised by the first statement which
states a personal like toward Michael J. Fox)
that tries to connect Parkinson's disease with
being a vegetarian. In other words, this is an
example of false cause and hasty
generalization. Since no causal links between
vegetarianism and Parkinson's disease have
been stated, and from one case you can not
generalize to other cases.

The Powerball has reached a near-record

jackpot of $210 million dollars. Almost
anyone would like that kind of money, and
one thing is for sure, if you don't play, you
can't win. Therefore Play Powerball!

In this case the conclusion is that one should

play Powerball. The reason for this conclusion
seems to follow from three true premises. 1)
The Jackpot has reached a near-record high. 2)
Almost anyone would like that kind of money
and 3) You can't win if you don't play.
However, there is an additional unstated true
premise which makes the conclusion very
weak, specifically that the odds of wining the
powerball are one chance in 120,526,770. This by
definition is extremely improbable! (Go here to see
how this figure was calculated)

Inductive Arguments

Every Banana plant that I have grown outside always dies immediately at The conclusion to this argument ce
the first touch of frost.
of banana plants the person has gro
Therefore, the banana plant growing outside will die too when we get our which enable them to survive belo
first frost.
I have always owned Ford vehicles, and have always been pleased with
their performance and reliability - therefore I should buy another Ford
this time too.

Again, the same considerations lis

would be weak. If the person had o
to be considered before coming do
argues from past experience to futu
Hume.

I have eaten toast with butter an jam every morning for the most of my
life.

Again, this argument is inductive,

may change things (NOTE: To stat

Therefore I may eat toast with butter and jam this morning, and it will not since in this case it is neither the to
poison me. (The toast I ate yesterday will not poison me today!)

FINAL NOTE:
Ways to tell the two types of arguments apart!
FOR VALID arguments, the addition of extra premises can not change the
conclusion - a valid conclusion deduced from a set of premises can never be
changed by the addition of new premises.
Also, it is inconceivable for the premises of a valid argument to be true and the
conclusion to be false (just try it!)
FOR INVALID arguments, the addition of new premises will many times
strengthen or weaken a given conclusion.
Also, it is conceivable for the conclusion of an invalid argument to be false even if
it does have true premises!