How do valid arguments differ from arguments based on facts?

In the philosophy of logic, the distinction between a valid argument and one based on facts centers on the difference between logical structure and empirical truth.

Validity refers strictly to the formal structure of an argument. An argument is deductively valid if the conclusion follows from the premises with absolute necessity; if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true by virtue of the argument's form. Validity is independent of the actual truth or falsity of the premises; it only guarantees that the inference itself is logically correct.12

In contrast, an argument based on facts—often referred to as a sound argument—requires two conditions:
* The argument must be logically valid.
* The premises must be factually true.2

While a logician focuses on the formal validity of the inference, the determination of whether premises are factually true is the task of specific disciplines or common observation. An argument can be perfectly valid in its structure but remain factually incorrect if its premises are false. Conversely, an argument may contain true factual statements but fail to be valid if the conclusion does not logically follow from those premises.2