why is this argument considered valid? premise 1 = you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. premise 2 = skip…

why is this argument considered valid? premise 1 = you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. premise 2 = skip is an old dog. conclusion = therefore, you can’t teach skip new tricks. a) premise 1 is always true – when dogs are old, they can’t learn anything. b) premise 2 can’t be proven. how do we know if skip is a dog? c) the conclusion follows the logic of the premises. if skip is an old dog, then he cant be taught new tricks. d) this is not a valid argument.

why is this argument considered valid? premise 1 = you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. premise 2 = skip is an old dog. conclusion = therefore, you can’t teach skip new tricks. a) premise 1 is always true – when dogs are old, they can’t learn anything. b) premise 2 can’t be proven. how do we know if skip is a dog? c) the conclusion follows the logic of the premises. if skip is an old dog, then he cant be taught new tricks. d) this is not a valid argument.

Answer

Brief Explanations:

A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Here, Premise 1 sets a general rule about old dogs and learning new tricks, and Premise 2 identifies Skip as an old dog. So, the conclusion that Skip can't be taught new tricks follows this logical structure.

Answer:

C) The conclusion follows the logic of the premises. If Skip is an old dog, then he can't be taught new tricks.