Skip main navigation

Validity and possible situations

Here we see how we can think of validity in terms of possible situations and note a crucial challenge to testing for validity.
A 'road sign' with many arrows, each one pointing to a different 'possibility'
© University of York

Now, when we’re thinking about whether an argument is valid or not, it can help to think in terms of possible situations (ways things could have been or could have gone). In this step, we look at this strategy and note a crucial challenge we face in testing for validity.

Possible situations

Thinking about validity in terms of possible situation, we’d say:

  • an argument is valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all of the premises are true and the conclusion is false

The reason it can help to think in terms of possible situations is simple: if we can think of and describe a possible situation (a way things could be or a way things could have gone) in which the premises of a particular argument would be true and the conclusion false (what’s called a counterexample), then we can conclude that the argument is not valid (invalid). If we can’t think of such a situation, that gives us some reason to think the argument is valid.

A crucial challenge

Crucially, however, this test for validity isn’t conclusive. Finding a counterexample does show conclusively that an argument is not valid. But failing to find one—at least where we just apply our imaginations in looking for counterexamples in an unsystematic way—doesn’t always show beyond doubt that an argument is valid. The trouble is that we might just have overlooked a counterexample that’s there to be found. We’ll find a solution to this particular important problem later in the course.

A quick note on possibility: When you think about whether there is a possible situation in which premises are true and conclusion false, you should allow in even remote possibilities. What we’re interested in is logical possibility, which in this context means anything that is possible, with the only restriction being that we keep the meanings of the words in the sentences we’re looking at constant. Considering this wide range of possibilities means that we’re setting the standard for validity very high, and if we find arguments that are valid we can have a very high level of confidence in them.

(If you’d like to find out more about kinds of possibility, take a look at the additional material linked below. Note that this is optional content, and you don’t need to cover it to follow the main thread of the course.)

© University of York
This article is from the free online

Logic: The Language of Truth

Created by
FutureLearn - Learning For Life

Our purpose is to transform access to education.

We offer a diverse selection of courses from leading universities and cultural institutions from around the world. These are delivered one step at a time, and are accessible on mobile, tablet and desktop, so you can fit learning around your life.

We believe learning should be an enjoyable, social experience, so our courses offer the opportunity to discuss what you’re learning with others as you go, helping you make fresh discoveries and form new ideas.
You can unlock new opportunities with unlimited access to hundreds of online short courses for a year by subscribing to our Unlimited package. Build your knowledge with top universities and organisations.

Learn more about how FutureLearn is transforming access to education