Is the following argument valid or invalid?P1. Start-ups with young founders always succeed.P2. Ms. Lee is the founder of a start-up.P3. Ms. Lee is young.Therefore,C. Ms. Lee's start-up will succeed.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Examining the structure of the argument, we start with the given statements and the goal to assess validity.
Option a: 'a. Invalid.' This would claim that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. To evaluate this, consider the link: P1 says that startups with young founders always succeed. P3 confirms Ms. Lee is young, and P2 confirms Ms. Lee is the founder of a startup. From these, the predicate in P1 applies to Ms. Lee's startup, implying its success. There is a direct application of a universal claim to a specific case, which preserves truth if the premises are true. Thus, labeling this as invalid would require a flaw such as a hidden assumption or a misinterpretation of the universal statement, which is not evident here.
Option b: 'b. Valid.' This option claims the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Given P1, the class of startups with young founders is defined as always succeeding. Since Ms. Lee is a young founder of a startup (P2 and P3 together establish both conditions), the universal claim in P1 applies to her startup, yielding the conclusion that her startup will succeed. The reasoning aligns with standard universal instantiation in predicate logic: if All X are Y, and an individual a is an X, then a is Y. There is a clear and straightforward line from premises to conclusion without requiring any additional assumptions.
Now, let’s probe for potential counterpoints to strengthen understanding. Could there be a problem with P1’s scope, such as 'start-ups with young founders' meaning only certain kinds of startups or excluding Ms. Lee’s case? The statement is stated as a general rule and, in the absence of contrary information, should be applicable to Ms. Lee’s startup when the conditions are met. Therefore, no contradiction arises from the premises given.
In summary, option a would require a logical misstep or an exception to the universal claim, which isn’t present in the provided premises. Option b correctly reflects the inferential path: because the startup has a young founder (Ms. Lee) and the universal claim asserts that such startups always succeed, the conclusion follows. The reasoning relies on applying a general rule to a specific instance, which is a valid form of argument in standard logic.

Is the following argument valid or invalid?P1. Start-ups with young founders always succeed.P2. Ms. Lee is the founder of a start-up.P3. Ms. Lee is young.Therefore,C. Ms. Lee's start-up will succeed.单项选择题

类似问题

X agreed to sexual activity with Y. Therefore, X has a contract with Y for sexual activity. Pineau argues that this argument is invalid. Adding which of the following premises would make it a valid (not sound!) argument (select all that apply):

P1. Pornography can cause harm. C. We should ban pornography. Which premises can we add (individually) that would make the argument valid:

What pioneering technique is being used by Musk and Bezos to reduce the cost of space travel?

What is the different approach that Allen and Branson are taking, compared with other organisations?

In the article, what is the billionaires’ attitude toward space travel?

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单