I need a response to the following..
Firstly, the concept of a priori knowledge must be defined. According to the authors Solomon and Higgins, a priori knowledge is “knowledge that is independent of any particular experience.” In other words, these concepts are things that we can know to be either true or false, regardless of one’s own experience. The analogy of solving a math problem is often compared to this concept in order to better understand the idea of a valid argument.
For example, if one is given a word problem to solve in math class, there is a certain process that must be used. If the problem requires the distance formula, then that person must use the distance formula exactly and make no mistakes in order to achieve the correct answer. Using deductive logic to work through a valid argument is the same idea–in a a valid argument, one must solve every step in a correct manner until a conclusion is reached, regardless of whether the premises are true or false. If a word problem in math gives a totally false story, but one solves it correctly, then it is valid despite the premises being untrue.