When the premises of a statement is true, there is no way the conclusion can be false, thus this statement is classified as valid argument. For instance, if the premises are true statements, then the conclusion must be true too in order to make such a statement a valid argument.
An example of a valid argument is:
When a person turns 18, they go buy a lottery ticket.
Jack turned 18 today.
So, Jack is going to buy a lottery ticket.
However, it is not to say that the premise of a valid argument cannot have a false premise, it's just that the claims in the argument may be deemed false and the argument can still be valid.
A strong argument is a conveyed with reason and logic. The premise needs to seem as a legitimate true statement and requires the conclusion to follow from the premise. (Epstein 49). In a sense, the argument needs to be convincing to the audience in order to persuade to them believe that it can truly happen. In contrast to a valid argument, a strong argument can have a true premise and a false conclusion simultaneously; essentially, the premise is the key to a powerful argument because it needs to "be more plausible than its conclusion." (Epstein 49).
An example of a strong argument is:
Carlyle is lactose intolerant and gets stomach aches every time he eats or drinks something with lactose. He ate an ice cream bar today. Now, he feels sick to his stomach.
Very good job at explaining strong and valid arguments. Your example of a person turning 18 and buying a lottery ticket was clearly valid. It was not confusing at all. Nice quotes from the book to help with your explanations. From reading this, I understand that the difference between a valid argument is that the premises are true but not necessarily strong. I understand that a strong argument also has a true premises but the conclusion follows the premise. I think strong arguments are better than valid arguments when trying to convince someone. Just because an argument is valid does not mean it is a good argument.
ReplyDelete