Question

argument in public advocacy quick check
drag each argument to the correct location. (1 point)
sound valid but unsound invalid
argument
the nineteenth amendment gave women in the united states the right to vote.
since 1980, women have registered to vote and turned out in greater numbers at the polls than men.
therefore, the nineteenth amendment was ratified some time before 1980.
john adams, john quincy adams’ father, was a federalist.
family members belong to the same political party.
thus, john quincy adams was a federalist like his father.
a world war is fought by multiple nations in multiple countries.
during the war of 1812, the united states fought great britain in america and canada.
it follows that the war of 1812 was a world war.

Answer:

To solve this, we analyze each argument based on the definitions of sound, valid but unsound, and invalid arguments:

1. First Argument:

• Premises: The Nineteenth Amendment gave women the right to vote; since 1980, women registered/voted in greater numbers than men.
• Conclusion: The Nineteenth Amendment was ratified before 1980.
• Analysis: The Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920 (a fact), so the conclusion is true, and the premises (even if the second premise is about post - 1980 voting) do not logically connect to the conclusion. Wait, actually, the key is: The Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920 (before 1980), and while the second premise is about post - 1980 voting, the conclusion is a true statement. But the logical structure: The first premise is about the amendment giving the right, the second about post - 1980 voting. However, the conclusion that the amendment was ratified before 1980 is a factual truth. But the argument's logic: The premises do not directly support the conclusion in a valid way? Wait, no—actually, the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920, so the conclusion is true. But the reasoning from the premises (voting numbers since 1980) to the conclusion (ratification before 1980) is not valid. Wait, maybe I messed up. Let's re - evaluate:

Wait, the first argument:
Premise 1: Nineteenth Amendment gave women US right to vote.
Premise 2: Since 1980, women registered/voted more than men.
Conclusion: Nineteenth Amendment ratified before 1980.

The conclusion is true (ratified in 1920), but the premises do not logically lead to the conclusion. So this is valid but unsound? No, validity is about logical structure. If the premises were true, would the conclusion follow? The first premise is about the amendment's effect, the second about post - 1980 voting. The conclusion is about when it was ratified. The premises do not support the conclusion, so the argument is invalid? Wait, no—maybe I made a mistake. Let's check the other arguments.

2. Second Argument (John Adams/John Quincy Adams):

• Premises: John Adams (father of JQA) was a Federalist; family members belong to the same political party.
• Conclusion: JQA was a Federalist.
• Analysis: The premise “family members belong to the same political party” is false (family members can have different parties). The logical structure is valid (if the premises were true, the conclusion would follow), but since one premise is false, it is valid but unsound.

3. Third Argument (War of 1812):

• Premises: A world war is fought by multiple nations in multiple countries; during War of 1812, US fought Great Britain in America and Canada.
• Conclusion: War of 1812 was a world war.
• Analysis: A world war involves multiple nations across multiple continents (typically). The War of 1812 was mainly between US and Britain (with some Native American allies), not multiple nations in the way a world war (like WWI/WWII) is. The premise about world war definition and the premise about War of 1812’s combat locations. The conclusion is false, and the logical structure: Does the premise “multiple nations in multiple countries” apply? The War of 1812 had US, Britain, and some Native groups—maybe not enough for “multiple nations” in the world - war sense. But the logical structure: If the premises were true (e.g., if “multiple nations” was defined as two), but the conclusion is false. Wait, no—validity is about structure. If the premises were true, would the conclusion follow? If a world war is “fought by multiple nations in multiple countries,” and War of 1812 had US (1 nation) and Britain (1 nation) in America and Canada (multiple countries? America and Canada are two countries). Wait, “multiple nations” would be at least two. So US and Britain are two nations, in two countries (America, Canada). So the premises would imply it's a world war. But the War of 1812 is not considered a world war. So the argument has a valid structure (if premises are true, conclusion follows) but the premises may be misapplied (or the definition of world war is incorrect). Wait, no—the key is: The first premise defines a world war as “fought by multiple nations in multiple countries.” The second premise says War of 1812 had US (1) and Britain (1) in America and Canada (2 countries). So “multiple nations” (2) and “multiple countries” (2). So if the premises were true, the conclusion would follow. But the conclusion is false (War of 1812 is not a world war), so the argument is valid but unsound? No, wait—the first premise’s definition of a world war is incorrect (a world war is more than two nations across multiple continents, typically). So the premise is false, and the structure: If the premises were true (incorrect definition + War of 1812 details), the conclusion would follow. So it's valid but unsound. But this contradicts the first argument.

Wait, let's start over with definitions:

• Sound Argument: Valid (logical structure) + all premises true + conclusion true.
• Valid but Unsound: Valid structure, but at least one premise false (so conclusion may be true or false, but structure is valid).
• Invalid Argument: Logical structure is flawed (even if premises are true, conclusion does not follow).

Correct Categorization:

• Sound: None of these, because:
• First argument: Premises do not support conclusion (invalid structure), even though conclusion is true.
• Second argument: False premise (family members same party), valid structure.
• Third argument: False premise (world war definition) or misapplication, valid structure.

• Valid but Unsound:
• Second argument (John Adams/JQA): Premise “family members same party” is false; structure is valid.
• Third argument (War of 1812): Premise “world war” definition is incorrect (or misapplied); structure is valid. Wait, no—maybe the first argument is valid but unsound?

Wait, I think I made a mistake earlier. Let's re - examine the first argument:

First argument:
Premise 1: Nineteenth Amendment gave women US right to vote. (True)
Premise 2: Since 1980, women registered/voted more than men. (True, in many elections)
Conclusion: Nineteenth Amendment ratified before 1980. (True, 1920)

But does the conclusion follow from the premises? The premises are about the amendment’s effect and post - 1980 voting. The conclusion is about when it was ratified. The premises do not logically lead to the conclusion, so the argument is invalid (structure is flawed).

Second argument:
Premise 1: John Adams (father) was Federalist. (True)
Premise 2: Family members belong to same party. (False)
Conclusion: JQA was Federalist. (False, JQA was a Democratic - Republican)
Structure: If premises were true, conclusion would follow (valid). But premise 2 is false, so valid but unsound.

Third argument:
Premise 1: World war = multiple nations in multiple countries. (False, a world war is larger - scale, multiple continents, many nations)
Premise 2: War of 1812: US vs Britain in America/Canada. (True, but “multiple nations” is US and Britain—two nations; “multiple countries” is America and Canada—two countries)
Conclusion: War of 1812 was world war. (False)
Structure: If premises were true (e.g., if “multiple nations” = two), conclusion would follow (valid). But premise 1 is false, so valid but unsound.

Wait, but the first argument’s conclusion is true, but the structure is invalid. So:

• Invalid: First argument (Nineteenth Amendment).
• Valid but Unsound: Second (John Adams) and Third (War of 1812) arguments.

But the problem says “drag each argument to the correct location.” Let's confirm:

1. Nineteenth Amendment Argument:

The premises (voting since 1980) do not support the conclusion (ratification before 1980) logically. So it is Invalid.

1. John Adams/JQA Argument:

Logical structure is valid (if premises were true, conclusion follows), but “family members same party” is false. So Valid but Unsound.

1. War of 1812 Argument:

Logical structure is valid (if premises were true, conclusion follows), but the definition of world war is incorrect (premise false). So Valid but Unsound.

Wait, but maybe the first argument is Valid but Unsound? No, because the premises do not lead to the conclusion. Validity is about if the premises are true, does the conclusion follow. In the first argument, even if both premises are true, the conclusion (ratified before 1980) does not follow from them. So it's invalid.

Final Categorization:

• Sound: None (no argument has valid structure + all true premises + true conclusion).
• Valid but Unsound:
• John Adams/JQA argument (premise “family members same party” is false; valid structure).
• War of 1812 argument (premise “world war” definition is false; valid structure).
• Invalid:
• Nineteenth Amendment argument (premises do not support conclusion).

So to drag:

• Valid but Unsound:
• John Adams, John Quincy Adams’ father, was a Federalist. Family members belong to the same political party. Thus, John Quincy Adams was a Federalist like his father.
• A world war is fought by multiple nations in multiple countries. During the War of 1812, the United States fought Great Britain in America and Canada. It follows that the War of 1812 was a world war.
• Invalid:
• The Nineteenth Amendment gave women in the United States the right to vote. Since 1980, women have registered to vote and turned out in greater numbers at the polls than men. Therefore, the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified some time before 1980.

(Note: The first argument’s conclusion is true, but the logical structure is invalid because the premises do not support the conclusion.)