P1: Julie is allergic to gluten

P2: If Julie eats gluten she would have an allergic reaction

P3: 2 Bread has gluten

C: Therefore, since Julie is allergic to gluten and she would have an allergic reaction if she ate gluten then she won’t be eating the bread.

This is a valid argument since all the premises are facts. Since Julie is allergic she will not be able to eat the bread that contains gluten.

P1- The maid has an alibi.

P2- The maid was a mile away, only minutes, before the crime was committed.

P3- She has no car.

P4- Without a car the maid could not have been at the scene quickly enough to commit the crime, even other means of transportation take longer than a few minutes like a bus or taxi.

C- The Maid is innocent

Logically speaking, whoever committed the crime had to be on scene. The Premises validly link to the conclusion because they show that the maid could not have been at the scene quickly enough to commit the crime. Therefore she couldn’t have committed the crime making her innocent. The best way to strengthen this argument would be by having more facts. In scenarios like this, there could be a lot of what if questions. For example, what if the maid was seen a mile away in a car she borrowed from a friend? Or what if the crime was setting off a bomb? In which she could have done from a mile away.