Once the actual argument is established, it should be examined for its validity. The argument can fail either because of its premises or because of its inferences. Thus, it is essential to know the differences between sound argument and valid argument. The reasoning method behind the interferences is correct when the deductive argument is valid and there are no fallacies. The conclusion of these arguments has to be true if the premises of such arguments are true. The reasoning method behind the inferences is not correct if the argument is invalid. Now, if the deductive argument is sound, it implies that both the inferences and the premises of the argument is true.  Thus, the conclusion is definitely true. Examples to show a sound argument are:

1. All birds are mammals
2. A platypus is a bird
3. Thus, the platypus is a mammal.

The above example is a valid deductive argument, even when both the premises re false. As the premises are not true, the argument cannot be considered a sound. On the contrary, the conclusion is true which implies that an argument with false premises can anyway produce a true conclusion.

1. All trees are plants
2. The redwood is a tree
3. Thus, the redwood is a plant.

Thus the above stated example is a valid deductive argument because it has correct form. Since the premises of the arguments are true, it is a sound. The form of the argument is valid and the premises are true, thus, it is guaranteed that the conclusion is also true.

Elizabeth own either a Honda or a Saturn.

Elizabeth does not own a Honda

Therefore, Elizabeth owns a Saturn.

Thus, it is essential to stress that premises of an argument do not have to be true for making the argument valid. An argument is only valid if the premises and the conclusion are related to each other. Thus, if the premises of an argument are true, the conclusion has to be true. In the above stated example even if one of the premises is false, and one of them is true. The conclusion can be true as well.

There are various scientific terms that the philosophers use to discuss about the quality of an argument. One of these terms is soundness. In order to say that an argument is a sound, it is necessary to say that the arguments are valid as all the premises of the arguments are true. If not, it is unsound. Soundness of any deductive system is the nature that any sentence that is provable in that deductive system is also true o all interpretations or structures of the semantic theory for the language upon which the theory is based. Strong soundness of a deductive system is that property that any sentence of the language upon which the deductive system is based that is derived from a set of sentences of that language is also a logical consequence of that set. Thus, it is clear that validity is all about the logical connection between the conclusion and the premises. Thus, when given a valid argument, it is essential to be careful before accepting the conclusion as a valid argument hall contains a false conclusion. The fact that soundness guarantees truth has led the philosophers to conclude that a sound argument is the similar thing as a good argument. This is not true. The relation between the quality of an argument and soundness is complex. In order to be flawless, an argument must be a sound where some sound arguments are bad and some good arguments are unsound.