What is the difference between a sound argument and a valid argument?
A sound argument is necessarily valid, but a valid argument need not be sound. The argument form that derives every $A$ is a $C$ from the premises every $A$ is a $B$ and every $B$ is a $C$, is valid, so every instance of it is a valid argument. Now take $A$ to be prime number, $B$ to be multiple of $4$, and $C$ to be even number. The argument is:
If every prime number is a multiple of $4$, and every multiple of $4$ is an even number, then every prime number is even.
This argument is valid: it’s an instance of the valid argument form given above. It is not sound, however, because the first premise is false.
Your example is not a sound argument: $q$ is true, so the premise $\sim q$ is false. It is a valid argument, however, because for any $p$ and $q$, if $p\lor q$ and $\sim q$ are both true, then $p$ must indeed be true.
Note that an unsound argument may have a true or a false conclusion. Your unsound argument has a true conclusion, $p$ (Jesse is my husband); mine above has a false conclusion (every prime number is even).
- Eating cheese makes your nose longer.
- Wild animals love the sound of the zither.
- If I lived on the moon, I would eat green cheese all the time.
- Long-nosed people always play the zither beautifully.
- The moon is made of green cheese.
- I am the king of the moon.
Because I am the king of the moon, I eat a lot of green cheese; as a result my nose is very long, and because of that I can soothe savage beasts with my exceptionally lovely zither playing.
This is a valid but unsound argument. The logic is valid, but it is based on false premises. (Can you identify them?)
You meet these arguments in the real world all the time, where the logic is straightforward but the premises are wrong. A recent valid but unsound argument that you might have been aware of is:
- Arming school janitors with guns is the only way to keep our children safe.
We must keep our children safe.
Therefore, we should make sure the janitors have guns.