The following problems pertain to the identification and evaluation of inductive and deductive arguments. Choose the most appropriate answer for each. Jim Searcy, a religious prophet residing in Cyprus, asserts that the Prince of Wales is the Antichrist. Consequently, we must infer that the Prince of Wales has malevolent intentions. A) Inductive, weak. B) Deductive, invalid. C) Deductive, sound. D) Deductive, valid. E) Inductive, strong.

B) Deductive, invalid.

This argument is deductive because it attempts to derive a specific conclusion (the Prince of Wales has malevolent intentions) from a general assertion (Jim Searcy claims the Prince of Wales is the Antichrist). Deductive arguments are intended to be conclusive — if the premises are true, the conclusion must necessarily follow.

However, this argument is invalid because even if we assume Jim Searcy's claim that the Prince of Wales is the Antichrist is true (which is a big assumption), it doesn’t logically follow that the Prince of Wales must have malevolent intentions. There could be alternative explanations or interpretations. The validity of a deductive argument is determined by its logical structure, not the truth of its premises. Since the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise, the argument is invalid.