Question

‘All men are mortal and Victoria is a woman and hence Victoria is mortal’. This statement is:

• A. Logically Valid
• B. Logically Invalid
• C. Logically True
• D. Logically False

Hint:

When solving logical reasoning questions, always ensure that the premises directly support the conclusion. The assumption that what’s true for one group applies to another without support is a logical fallacy.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Judging an argument's validity means checking only whether the conclusion truly follows from the premises, not whether the conclusion sounds true.

1. Logically Valid: would need the premises to force the conclusion; "all men are mortal" says nothing about a woman, so this label does not apply.
2. Logically Invalid: the premises are about men, the conclusion is about Victoria, who is stated to be a woman, so the premises never actually reach the conclusion, which is the definition of an invalid argument.
3. Logically True: reserved for statements true by form alone in every case, which does not describe this multi-premise inference.
4. Logically False: would mean the statement is a contradiction; "Victoria is mortal" is not self-contradictory, so this does not fit either.

Therefore, the correct answer is Logically Invalid.

Answer 2

A quick way to test whether an argument's structure can be trusted is to build another argument using the exact same pattern and see if that pattern can still produce a false conclusion elsewhere. Applying "all men are mortal, X is not a man, hence X is mortal" to something like a table gives "a table is mortal," which is obviously false, even though it follows the identical structure as the Victoria argument. Since the same structure can produce a false conclusion elsewhere, the structure itself cannot be trusted to guarantee truth. Let's check each label against this finding.

1. Logically Valid: ruled out, since a structure that can produce a false conclusion when applied elsewhere, as shown with the table example, is not one that can be called valid.
2. Logically Invalid: fits exactly, since the same pattern of reasoning is shown to be capable of reaching a false conclusion in another case, meaning the structure itself doesn't guarantee its conclusion, which is what makes it invalid, regardless of Victoria's case happening to end in a true statement.
3. Logically True: describes a single self-contained statement true by form alone in every case, not a multi-premise inference like this one, so it doesn't apply to an argument at all.
4. Logically False: would require the conclusion to be self-contradictory in every interpretation; "Victoria is mortal" isn't a contradiction, so this label doesn't fit either.

Because the same argument pattern can be built to reach a false conclusion elsewhere, the pattern itself is unreliable, which is exactly what makes it invalid.

Therefore, the correct answer is Logically Invalid.