Valid Vs Invalid Arguments 2.3 Quiz Test

False. Lots of animals bark, like wolves, coyotes and seals. People can even bark. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Valid. If the card you picked is not a Jack, but the only options were Jack, Queen and King, the card you chose must be either a Queen or a King.

Valid. These aren't always easy to see. In this case, it's helpful to be familiar with some of the common valid and invalid argument forms associated with conditional arguments. This is an instance of a valid argument form: If A, then B, not B, therefore, not-A. In this case, if the car started, but there was no gas in the car, it would contradict the first premise. That first premise guarantees that if the car starts, there's gas in the car.

Invalid. We saw an example like this earlier. Having a Master's degree and having five years of work experience are not mutually exclusive. It is possible Johnny had a Master’s degree and not five years of experience, but still got the job.

Invalid, but not because the first premise is false. It's invalid because the premises don't guarantee the truth of the condition.

True. We'll see more examples in the next section.

False. A valid argument satisfies the Logic Condition, but it remains to be seen whether it also satisfies the Truth Condition. Good arguments must satisfy both.

True. As we've defined it, validity is a property of whole arguments, not of individual claims.

False. Lots of animals bark. People can bark. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Invalid. If the meaning of "jackass" was the SAME on both premises, then it would be valid. But clearly, we're using the term in two different senses in each of the premises. In the first premise, we're using jackass metaphorically as an insult. In the second premise, we're using it literally to refer to a type of animal with long ears. Since these terms no longer refer to the same thing, the logic is broken, and the conclusion doesn't follow. Arguments like this commit the fallacy known as "equivocation," which involves using the same term with two different meanings in an argument. Here we'd say that this argument "equivocates on the meaning of jackass."