Example of an unsound argument with true premise and true conclusions

Question

I'm doing an introductory undergraduate course on philosophy. I was reading an introduction to what argument is and what kinds of arguments there are when I came across this.

'Soundness: An argument is sound if it is (i) valid and (ii) has true premises. So the soundness of an argument depends on both its form (i) and its content (ii). Not all valid arguments are sound. Not all arguments with true premises and a true conclusion are sound.'

I don't understand how an argument could be unsound if it has a true premise and a true conclusion. What would an example of such an argument be?

Answer 1

The sky is blue

Therefore, grass is green.

The premise and the conclusion are both true. But the argument is not sound, because it's not valid. And it's not valid because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Answer 2

im doing my studies though failing to understand this activity

A communist state is necessary a failure (A) Wherever the work force is institutionalised there can be no hope either entrepremeurial development or of personal financial gain or advancement (B) The possibility of imdividual expression is removed (C) All the people are viewed as identical workers of the state (D) People hence become stuck as machines serving the greatir machimery if the state. (E) Human greed so despised by communists in capitalism leads to sictators rising. (F) So i ask you have you e er met a happy person from a formerky communist. (G) It seems fairly obvious that no communist parrty should be supported (H)

1 Unsouns value argument 2 Valid empirical argument 3 souns value argumemt 4 Deductive empirical argument