Final answer:
RAA refutations of an invalid argument never always happen because the success of an RAA refutation depends on the validity of premises and logic. Counterexamples can show that conclusions don't necessarily follow, demonstrating invalidity.
Step-by-step explanation:
Correctly completed Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA) refutations of an invalid argument never always happen. An RAA argument reduces the antithesis of a view to absurdity, suggesting that since the antithesis is absurd, the original view must be correct. For example, in Anselm's argument for the existence of God, the antithesis that 'God does not exist' is shown to lead to a logical impossibility, therefore concluding that 'God exists'. However, the success of an RAA refutation is contingent on the validity of the premises and the logical structure of the argument. A counterexample that shows an argument to be invalid even if the premises are true, but the conclusion is false, emphasizes this point. Counterexamples demonstrate that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, thus refuting an argument's validity.