I don't understand this logic question/answer

[her209]

True: If a person is a Intelligence Research Specialist, the person is an employee of the U.S. Government.

Valid Conclusion: If a person is not an employee of the U.S. Government, the person is not an Intelligence Research Specialist.

-----------

I would have said "INVALID" because, why is the government the only place with someone having the title "Intelligence Research Specialist"?

If there are "Intelligence Research Specialists" that work at non-governmental entities, then the original statement "If a person is a Intelligence Research Specialist, the person is an employee of the U.S. Government." is false and therefore the conclusion "If a person is not an employee of the U.S. Government, the person is not an Intelligence Research Specialist." is also false.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I would have said "INVALID" because, why is the government the only place with someone having the title "Intelligence Research Specialist"?

You're disagreeing with the premise, not the conclusion. The conclusion is valid given that the premise is true, which you said it is.

 

[pmv]

If there are "Intelligence Research Specialists" that work at non-governmental entities, then the original statement "If a person is a Intelligence Research Specialist, the person is an employee of the U.S. Government." is false and therefore the conclusion "If a person is not an employee of the U.S. Government, the person is not an Intelligence Research Specialist." is also false.

But that's irrelevant. True/false is not the same thing as valid/invalid. In your example, the conclusion is indeed false, but its still valid. As I understand it, a conclusion can be valid but false.

The argument would not be sound, but it would be valid.