Final answer:
The validity of the logical argument provided cannot be assessed without additional information or steps showing the connection between the premises and the conclusion through deductive inferences.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question asks if a certain logical argument is valid, using the premises '(D&E)∓ > F, G&˜(H<->I)' to deduce the conclusion '˜J∓ > (K&L)'. To determine if it is a valid argument, we would need to know if following logical rules like modus ponens, disjunctive syllogism, etc., can lead us from the premises to the conclusion correctly. Without additional steps and given just the comparison of variables, we can't definitively say that the argument is valid.
Arguments in logic must follow a consistent pattern where if the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true. This follows what is known as a deductive inference.
For the example provided, there is not enough context or information to properly apply a deductive inference to the conclusion, thus we cannot assume the argument is valid. Invalid deductive inferences can often be spotted when one can imagine a scenario where the premises are true, but the conclusion is false.