A strong argument is an argument which has true premises and a conclusion that is highly plausible. A valid argument has true premises as well, it however has a valid conclusion that is for sure true. The difference between a valid and strong argument is whether or not the conclusion is plausible.
For example: The Ducks of Anaheim won the Stanley Cup in 2007. This argument is valid because it is a true fact that has happened.
An example of a strong argument would be: Every time I attend a Sharks vs. Ducks hockey game, the Ducks always win. Therefore, when I attend the next game in October, the Ducks will win again. In this specific argument, the premise is true. It is true that every time I have gone to a Ducks game in San Jose, they have won the game. The conclusion is plausible but is not valid. I do not know for sure that the Ducks will win the next game. The Ducks could be having an off-day and could very easily lose the game. This argument is therefore a strong argument because the conclusion is plausible but is not a 100%.
Your example for a strong argument was good but I wasn’t too sure for the example of a valid one. You gave an easy to understand argument. “The Ducks of Anaheim won the Stanley Cup in 2007” is definitely true without a doubt, and is a valid statement. However, in the first example you did not have a conclusion. I’m not sure if the conclusion for the second example is supposed to be applied to the first but if it is then the argument would not be valid. The conclusion you gave for the second example was, “Therefore, when I attend the next game in October, the Ducks will win again.” This would not be valid because you cannot predict the future and the Ducks might actually lose like you stated.
ReplyDelete