[sweetbugg3]

Here me out.

I don’t know if you remember my username but I had challenges understanding conditional reasoning, flaws and how to translate statements (for LR).

I decided to review the chapters on flaws again and realized that the premise is like the sufficient condition that guarantees the conclusion (the necessary condition). So if the premise doesn’t validate the conclusion the argument is said to be invalid? please confirm if this is the right thinking.

Argument 1
To watch the soccer match, you must have a television. Since Ted has a television, he will be able to watch the soccer match.

Ted watching the television does not guaranteed that he will be able to watch the soccer match so this argument is invalid.

Argument 2
To watch the soccer match, you must have a television. Ted watched the soccer match, so he has a television.

In this case the premise does guaranteed the conclusion based on the condition and the argument is valid

Argument 3
To watch the soccer match, you have have a television. Therefore Ted has a television.
Sufficient Assumption: Ted watched the Soccer match

[Mike Kim]

Hey —

I think you may have accidentally switched around the wording a bit on the first one —

Ted watching the television does not guaranteed that he will be able to watch the soccer match so this argument is invalid.

Should be

Ted having a television does not guarantee that he will be able to watch the soccer match so this argument is invalid.

But I think you meant right there and everything else looks good! — MK

[sweetbugg3]

Ok thanks!