The argument is valid. The premise is true meaning that theconclusion to be arrived at would correspondingly be true. Forexample, the fact that whales are mammals is a confirmation that allof them would be having lungs. It is by the fact that whale is amammal in nature that they would be similarly be having lungs. Thevalidity emanates from the connection of the whales being mammals andorganisms in a similar group having lungs.
The argument is valid. The premise of the case is that the fact thatan individual owns all the gold in Fort Knox, they would be wealthy.The individual owns all the gold in Fort Knox. Because of the same,they are wealthy since they possess all of the gold that is availablein Fort Knox. The validity of the argument emanates from the factthat the premise is true meaning that the conclusion would as well becorrect.
The argument presented is invalid. The fact that the individual iswealthy is not a reflection of them owning the gold. The conclusionstates that a person owning the gold must be wealthy. Therefore ifone is wealthy, they own all the gold in Fort Knox. Such sentimentsare evidently wrong. One could be wealthy by through other meansapart from owning the gold.
Finally, the argument is invalid. The perception one has a particularissue not valid. For example, because one thinks about a particularissue, does not mean that it is the actual scenario. The differencerests in the reality of the issue surrounding their thoughts. Becauseof the same, their thoughts are not as the situation is.