Consider the following argument: "The philosopher James Rachels lived in Birmingham, Alabama. Therefore, the philosopher James Rachels frequently traveled through Atlanta." This argument:
A) Is sound but not valid because the premise does not give sufficient reason to accept the conclusion.
B) Is invalid because even if he lived in Birmingham, Rachels might not have traveled through Atlanta.
C) Is not cogent because the premise is irrelevant to the conclusion.
D) Is invalid because it does not provide enough reason to believe that Rachels really did live in Birmingham.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The argument is invalid because living in Birmingham does not necessarily mean Rachels traveled through Atlanta; the premise does not logically lead to the conclusion.

Consider the Following Argument: "The Philosopher James Rachels Lived in Birmingham