Originally Posted By: Derid

For the example I clearly stated the condition that rain was required for seeds to sprout.


This is very last attempt before I give up on you.

Argument with "rain was required for seeds to sprout" would look like following:

Given that/If it rains tomorrow, then there is a possibility the seed might sprout.

One more time:

(P)I have a lottery ticket (that might win)
(P)My lottery ticket has winning number
------
(C)I won the lottery

Above is OK argument.


(P) I have a lottery ticket (that might win)
-----
(C) I won the lottery

I hope you would agree that above is not OK argument.

{P} I have a lottery ticket (that might win)
------
(C) I might win the lottery

Above is not OK argument. It is not valid. I could have non-winning lottery ticket (so premise is true) and not win the lottery (so conclusion is false).

Generally speaking, arguments with non-definitive conclusion are invalid. What invalid means in this circumstances? It means that you can add might to almost any conclusion and have it non-wrong.

Examples:

{P) My neighbor wears pink hat
---
(C) She might be a Hitler

(P) I heard strange noise in the basement
----
(C) It might be second coming of Christ

[Linked Image]