Question

Since the constitution of the US has been ratified by every state in the union, it follows that the constitution has been overturned. Is this argument inductive or deductive? Is it weak or strong? Is it valid or invalid? Is it cogent or uncogent? Is it sound or unsound?

1) Inductive, weak, invalid, uncogent, unsound
2) Inductive, weak, invalid, uncogent, sound
3) Deductive, strong, valid, cogent, unsound
4) Deductive, strong, valid, cogent, sound

Answer 1

The argument suggesting that ratification implies the Constitution has been overturned is deductive, strong in form but invalid, uncogent, and unsound as the conclusion is incorrect despite true premises.

Step-by-step explanation:

The argument provided is a deductive one because it attempts to draw a definite conclusion based on the premise that all states have ratified the US Constitution. However, the conclusion that the Constitution has been overturned does not follow from the premise; instead, ratification means the Constitution has been affirmed by the states. Therefore, the argument is invalid.

An argument is considered valid in deductive reasoning when the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. In this case, the premise is true—every state has ratified the US Constitution—but the conclusion is false as the Constitution has not been overturned but is actually in effect. Hence, we have a strong form of reasoning based on structure, but it is uncogent because the premises do not support the conclusion, making it also unsound.