Use the cats-and-dogs example to explain how a counterexample can demonstrate that an argument is invalid.

### What a good answer covers - State that the two premises in the example are true. - State that the conclusion is false. - Explain that true premises paired with a false conclusion demonstrate invalidity. - Note that invalidity prevents soundness. ### The concept A **counterexample** for a deductive argument is a possible case in which every premise is true but the conclusion is false. Validity rules out exactly that combination. In the cats-and-dogs argument, both categories belong to the broader category of mammals, but that shared category does not make dogs cats. The example therefore exposes a gap in the reasoning. A counterexample does not need to show that every premise is false; it tests whether the premises guarantee the conclusion. ### Terms - **Counterexample**: A case that disproves a claim that an argument is valid. - **Invalid**: Not logically guaranteed by the premises. - **Sound**: Valid and based on true premises. ### Remember To show invalidity, find one possible true-premise, false-conclusion case.