Truth and Validity: Contrasting Notions in Assigned Arguments for Paper Topic 1

Argument 1

Questions:

General Comments This is the same topic as the paper discussed in the videos for paper topic 1. You will see some material in italics. This material would not appear in the paper. This material in italics consists of meta-comments. I am making comments about the material that help you write the paper, but these comments would not appear in the paper itself. By the way, this is not your paper. Don’t turn this in for a score. 

Introduction
And no, you do not have to include the headings ‘Introduction’, ‘Main Body’, and ‘Conclusion’ in your paper. I am doing this in order to make this more accessible for some students. But if you include these headings, I am not going to mark down. They’re optional. I am not going to provide a sample introduction. In your introduction, you want to give a definition of validity. Just take a definition from the textbook. These are standard definitions that are used in almost every logic class. Point out that people often mistake validity and truth. Did you make this mistake? If so, it is fine to say so (it shows that even intelligent people can make this mistake.) Why might people make this mistake (does it have something to do with the word ‘true’ in the definition of validity? The purpose of this paper is to show that validity and truth are not the same.

Introduction
a.Provide a definition for validity. Just use a definition from the textbook. These are standard definitions.
b.Explain why many people tend to equate valid arguments with true arguments and invalid arguments with false arguments. (Does the definition of validity include the phrase ‘true premises’?)
c.Explain that you will be contrasting the notions of truth and validity in terms of the assigned arguments for paper topic 1.

A.Argument 1
1.Put the assigned argument in standard logical form. You do not have to explain how you put the argument in standard logical form. Provide the instance or dictionary as well. This argument is an enthymeme. 
2.Prove the argument is valid by both a Venn diagram and Salmon’s rules (use all three rules—you do not have to state the rules, just apply them.)
3.Explain why each statement in the argument is false.
a.Explain why premise 1 is false
b.Explain why premise 2 is false
c.Explain why the conclusion is false

B.Argument 2
1.Put the assigned argument in standard logical form. You do not have to explain how you did this. This argument is not an enthymeme.
2.Prove the argument is invalid by both a Venn diagram and Salmon’s rules.
3.Explain why each statement in the argument is true.
a.Explain why premise 1 is true
b.Explain why premise 2 is true
c.Explain why the conclusion is true

Conclusion
Is either argument sound? How does each argument violate a requirement for soundness? What does this tell us about truth and validity? Are they the same?

General Remark
This is an essay paper. Your paper should not resemble an outline once you have finished the paper. You should not have features such as A.2 or B.3.a in your paper.