validity of an argument

The validity of an argument is not a guarantee of the truth of its conclusion.

Peter Geach and others have criticized the use of distribution to determine the validity of an argument.

Here, they're always analyzing, they're always theorizing, they're always determining the validity of an argument.

Since the validity of an argument depends solely on its form, an argument can be shown to be invalid by showing that its form is invalid.

The concept of logical form is central to logic, it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content.

The validity of an argument depends, however, not on the actual truth or falsity of its premises and conclusion, but solely on whether or not the argument has a valid logical form.

A co-premise is a premise in reasoning and informal logic which is not the main supporting reason for a contention or a lemma, but is logically necessary to ensure the validity of an argument.

The validity of an argument in politics can be evaluated in at least two ways: in purely semantic terms or in terms of adherence to certain rules of argument (which we can consider rules of fairness).