Ask a Catholic

[Randy Carson]

In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the "hypothetical syllogism" argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.
 

So what?

I can come up with an endless list of logically valid syllogisms that do not prove their conclusions, because they are not sound. 


For an syllogism to prove its conclusion it has to be both valid and sound.

If the syllogism is valid, then which premise is unsound?