Final answer:
An argument with true premises and a true conclusion is not necessarily good in Aristotle's logic; it must also be a valid argument, where the premises logically necessitate the conclusion.
Step-by-step explanation:
In Aristotle's logic, the fact that an argument has true premises and a true conclusion is not sufficient to make it a good argument. What is crucial is that the argument must be valid, where validity refers to the logical structure of the argument ensuring that if the premises are true, the conclusion must necessarily be true. A valid inference is what makes an argument logically sound; the premises must logically support the conclusion. Thus, an argument is only considered good if it is both valid and the premises are in fact true.
For example, consider the statement "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." This argument is valid and sound because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, demonstrating a clear deductive inference. However, if an argument contains true premises and a true conclusion but the premises do not logically necessitate the conclusion, it is not a valid argument, even if it happens to be true by chance. Correct logical analysis is essential for determining the strength of this inference.