Final answer:
The argument that a job must be easy because someone took a bike to work is not valid, as commuting method does not logically infer job difficulty.
Step-by-step explanation:
The argument presented suggests that a person's job must be easy because he took his bike to work. An argument's validity is determined by whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises. In this case, the conclusion about the job's difficulty does not logically follow from the premise of commuting by bike.
Therefore, the argument is not valid. This has to do with logical reasoning rather than with tangible performance indicators or job requirements. Just because someone commutes by bike does not provide sufficient information about the ease or difficulty of their job. Factors such as distance, preference, health, or environmental concerns might influence one's choice of transportation.