If a deductive argument is either poorly structured or has at least one false premise, then we say that argument is invalid, unsound, weak, or uncogent.
The correct answer and explanation is:
The correct answer is “invalid” or “unsound.”
In logic, an argument is evaluated based on its structure and the truth of its premises. A deductive argument is considered valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. This means that if all the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. However, if the argument has a structure that does not ensure the truth of the conclusion based on the truth of the premises, then it is considered invalid.
When evaluating a deductive argument, there are two key concepts: validity and soundness.
- Validity refers to the argument’s structure, specifically whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises. An argument can be valid even if the premises are false. The only requirement for validity is that the conclusion must follow necessarily from the premises.
- Soundness goes a step further and considers both the logical structure and the truth of the premises. An argument is sound if it is both valid (i.e., its conclusion logically follows from its premises) and all of its premises are true. If an argument is invalid or has any false premises, it is not sound.
In the scenario where the argument is poorly structured or has at least one false premise, it would be considered invalid because it does not meet the logical requirements for deductive reasoning, and potentially unsound if the false premise or flawed structure causes the argument to fail both in truth and in validity.
It is important to note that the terms “weak” and “uncogent” are used in inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. In an inductive argument, “weak” means the premises do not provide strong support for the conclusion, and “uncogent” means the argument is both weak and has at least one false premise.