Truth vs. Validity

[inesa909]

Is there any significant difference between the use of the terms "if true" and "if valid" in question stems?

I might just be over-thinking things, but validity and truth are two markedly different entities when formulating an argument and it would be interesting to know what insights, if any, could be gained on a question by the discrepancy between those two things.

Thanks in advance.

[ohthatpatrick]

Cool question!

No difference at all, and, in fact, we should throw into that lot "if assumed".

"if true" = "if valid" = "if assumed"

It's important to recognize all three of these, because whenever questions use these phrases to describe the answer choices, we switch into thinking, "the stronger the language, the more helpful this answer potentially is to me".

We see these phrases with
Strengthen
Weaken
Sufficient Assumption
Principle-Justify
Resolve/Explain

On all of these questions, I am SUPER skeptical of any answer choice that uses weak, watered-down language like "some, can, may, might, not all, sometimes".

The correct answer almost always uses strong language.

Anyway, the philosopher in me really wishes there were a difference on LSAT between 'truth' and 'validity' because it would nerdy fun to pontificate on the nuanced difference. But in terms of LSAT, they're interchangeable.

Have fun.

[inesa909]

It's important to recognize all three of these, because whenever questions use these phrases to describe the answer choices, we switch into thinking, "the stronger the language, the more helpful this answer potentially is to me".

I'm so glad that you added this part because that is another issue that I have been struggling with (thinking that an answer choice is too strong).

I can't thank you enough.