I am new to a philosophy course and recently learned about validity and soundness of an argument. In this exercise:
Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is mortal.
Conclusion: Socrates is human.
It is asked to find if this argument is sound or not.
From the definition of soundness of an argument, it needs to be valid and the premises need to be true. Hence, I think this one is a sound sentence. (Though intuitively it seems the argument is not correct. Here, I am not talking about validity. By not being correct I mean this is not a good argument.)
But, the answer is - "This argument has all true premises (and a true conclusion) but it it is invalid. So it is not sound."
I am not getting how this is invalid (and hence, not getting how it is an unsound argument). Can anyone explain to me how this argument is invalid?