Like the title asks, I wonder if the invalid conclusion would tend to work if the letters of the premise were simply flipped to draw the simple conclusion?
Trying to logically parse the statement: “Lie” means “false statement” (taken from Gensler's intro to Logic), for example, I would reason out that:
all L* is F TF all F is L* (invalid)
Logically invalid seems of course right, since not all falsehoods are lies per se.
But then I guess if 'all L is F' were a valid conclusion/statement, then L=F and so there would only be either L or F and not really both?
Sorry for the n00ber question, but I am just getting a start in logical thinking and trying to determine when reading single statements if there is a way to test their validity without knowing the premises upon which they were based?