Valid arguments differ vastly from strong arguments. Valid is defined as having a good base for something. An argument that is valid has truth and reasoning behind it. An example is (premise) The Green Bay Packers won the Super bowl. (Premise) Aaron Rodgers is a Green Bay Packer. (Conclusion) Aaron Rodgers is a super bowl champion. The argument is valid because both premises are true and the conclusion is true. The definition of a valid argument is one in which the premises are true, therefore the conclusion must also be true.
Strong arguments on the other hand derive from the fact that there is merit and fact in the argument. In valid while the premises can be false and still be considered right, in a strong argument, the logic must be present. The above valid argument is truthful and logical, but valid arguments can be illogical. Strong arguments need true premises and therefore a true conclusion. My example is one I have heard plenty, men is mortal. Socrates was a man, therefore Socrates was mortal.
No comments:
Post a Comment