Sentential Logic by Professor Roy: Logical Validity

Response to Hannah #1 Logical Validity can be very tricky when it is use in a philosophical way. When dealing with logical validity, it needs a common, everyday argument. Logical validity can be use to figure out any honesty out of an argument. By doing so, you’ll need to have an argument with sentences that will support a conclusion. From the book, Sentential Logic, by Professor Roy, the definition of logical validity is, “the argument is logically valid if and only if there is no consistent story in which all premises are true and the conclusion is false.” To have any logic valid, you will need a argument in which is a couple sentences with a conclusion that is support by statement which is call premises. The way is will be set up is as having two premises as sentence with a line under and follow with a sentence. The sentence under the line is the conclusion. To prove the definition works, I will give an example to show logical validity.
If it is winter, then there will be snow
It is winter
_____________
Thus, it is snowing.
While we pay attention to the definition of logical validity, the premise are suppose to be true and the conclusion is false. If you look at the argument, it really isn’t that strong to be true. For example, suppose it is winter in Fontana, California of 2012, there was no snow. Yet, there was snow on 2007. The conclusion is not fully correct. Therefore by definition, it is logically valid. At other points the V.T does not work. Everyone who loves math is happy
Erika does not love math
___________
Erika is not happy.

With a premise true and conclusion false,
Everyone who love math is happy
Erika does not love math
___________
Erika is happy.
Story: Erika does not love math but is happy because she cheated and got an A+ on her final.
This explain the premises is false and conclusion true. By definition this is not logically valid.