2 replaced http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/ with https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Because validity has nothing to do with having true premises.

An argument is valid if it is the case that were its premise true, then its conclusion must also be true.

See http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/16455/logical-form-of-the-definition-of-validityWhat is the logical form of the definition of validity? for a more thorough explanation of the difference.

Because validity has nothing to do with having true premises.

An argument is valid if it is the case that were its premise true, then its conclusion must also be true.

See http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/16455/logical-form-of-the-definition-of-validity for a more thorough explanation of the difference.

Because validity has nothing to do with having true premises.

An argument is valid if it is the case that were its premise true, then its conclusion must also be true.

See What is the logical form of the definition of validity? for a more thorough explanation of the difference.

1
source | link

Because validity has nothing to do with having true premises.

An argument is valid if it is the case that were its premise true, then its conclusion must also be true.

See http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/16455/logical-form-of-the-definition-of-validity for a more thorough explanation of the difference.