The statement is not necessarily valid. The argument appears to be in the form of a categorical syllogism, where the first premise establishes a generalization about all astronauts, the second premise specifies an individual (Kayla) as belonging to that category, and the conclusion draws an inference about that individual based on the generalization. However, the validity of the argument depends on the accuracy of the premises.
The generalization in the first premise, "All astronauts have been to space," is problematic. While it is true that astronauts are trained for space missions, not all individuals who hold the title of astronaut have necessarily been to space. There are astronauts who are involved in various aspects of space programs, such as training, research, or mission control, without having experienced space travel themselves.
Given this nuance, the argument breaks down. The conclusion, "Therefore, Kayla has been to space," cannot be automatically inferred from the premises because the initial generalization is not universally true. Kayla, as an astronaut, might or might not have been to space, depending on her specific role within the astronaut program.
In conclusion, the argument is invalid because the first premise oversimplifies the experiences of astronauts, leading to a conclusion that cannot be reliably drawn. It is crucial to be cautious with generalizations, especially when making inferences about specific individuals within a broader category.