In definition of logic as the science and art of correct thinking the word thinking does

not include absolutely all-mental operations but only those mental operations:

a. That all are directed towards the attainment of truth and

b. By which we elaborate upon knowledge previously possessed.

What is validity? In a philosophical sense a valid argument.

An argument is a group of statements including one or more premises and one and only
one conclusion.

A statement is a sentence that is either true or false, such as "The cat is on the mat." Many
sentences are not statements, such as "Close the door, please" , "How old are you?"

A valid argument is always divided into two:

A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the

conclusion. There can be one or many premises in a single argument.

A conclusion is a statement in an argument that indicates of what the arguer is trying to

convince the reader/listener. What is the argument trying to prove? There can be only
one conclusion in a single argument.

Hence, The answer to any question is the conclusion. There must also be at least one
reason and possibly many. These are your premises.

From the above definitions, A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes
a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion
nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

In short, all regarding the validity of an argument. If all the premises are true then the
conclusion must be true.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises
are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of
the conclusion.
Arguments are composed of statements:

These statements can be either true or false.

An argument can be true or false, it can only be valid or invalid.

If the premises are true then the, conclusion is also true.

If the argument is valid, then the truth from this conclusion follows from the truth
of its premises.

If the truth of the premises entails the conclusion, then the argument is valid.

Example:

P1: All law students are smart.

P2: Ysmael is a law student.

C: Therefore, Ysmael is smart.

From the said example, following the above definition the said argument may be valid.

Example 2:

P1: Ysmael is a law student who likes to cram.

P2: Law students have a volume of readings.

C: Ysmael reads a lot.

From the said example, the premises may be true but the conclusion is definitely false.
Because no law student who has a volume of readings would ever cram. Hence, such
argument is invalid.

Examples 3:

P1: Killing is punishable under the revised penal code.

P2: Killing is a human rights violation.
C: Therefore human rights violations are punishable under the revised penal code.

From the said example, both the premises are true hence it is implied that the conclusion
is valid. From the point of view of a layman the conclusion may have been valid.
However, a jurist would not agree otherwise. Killing it may be either murder or homicide
is generally a crime punishable under the RPC. But human rights violations is a
contravention of the constitutional guarantee under the Bill of Rights. Which said rights
is only available against the actions of the government. Hence, human rights violation is
generally an act against an individual by the government if done by a private individual
that would merely consummate a crime.

Further samples and/or illustrations:

Logic is principally concerned with inference. Argumentation Is also called inference

and of which the following syllogism is a typical example:

P1: Every dog is an animal;

P2: But every hound is a dog;
C: Therefore every hound is an animal.

First two are the premises or antecedents are true

And the third (conclusion or consequent) must also be true.

P1: No barrister got a hundred in the bar exam

P2: But Ysmael is a barrister
C: Therefore Ysmael did not get a hundred in the bar exam

Simple Categorical Syllogism

P1: Every animal is mortal;

P2: but every dog is an animal;
C: Therefore every dog is mortal.

Additional definitions:

a. Major Term the major term is the predicate of the conclusion. The major term must
occur in the conclusions and in one of the premises, generally the first, which is therefore
called the MAJOR PREMISE.

b. Minor Term is the subject of the conclusion. The minor term must occur in the
conclusion and the premise of which the major term does not occur.

c. Middle Term occurs in each of the premises but not in the conclusion. In the major
premise it occurs in conjunction with major term; and in minor premise, in conjunction
with the minor term.
Rules:
1. THEIR NUMBERS AND ARRANGEMENTS
a. There must be three terms and only three - major term, minor term, and
middle term.
b. Each term must occur in two propositions.
c. The major in minor terms may not be universal in the conclusion unless
they are universal in the premises.
d. The middle term must be universal or at least distributed at least once

2. THE QUALITY OF THE PROPOSITIONS

a. If both premises must be affirmative, the conclusion must be affirmative
b. If one premise is affirmative and the other is negative, the conclusion must
be negative
c. If both premises are negative and equivalently affirmative there is no
conclusion at all.

3. Quantity of propositions
a. At least one premise must be universal
b. If a premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular

4. THE EXISTENSIAL IMPORT OF THE PROPOSITIONS

a. The actual real existence of a subject may not be asserted in the
conclusion unless it has been asserted in the premises.

Those arguments that are found to false are called fallacies. A Fallacy is a deceptive
argument, that is, an argument that seems to be conclusive but is actually not conclusive.

Different kind of Fallacies of language

Equivocation
Amphiboly
Composition
Division
Accent
Figures of speech

Source:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
http://www.uky.edu/~rosdatte/phi120/lesson1a.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdJ6aGToDlo
Introduction to logic by Andrew H. Bachuuber, S.J.