Basic definition is flawed

From ChatGPT:

A deductive argument is a type of reasoning where the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true and the reasoning is valid.

Think of it like a math proof or a carefully built domino chain:

If the first statements (premises) are correct,
and the steps from them to the conclusion follow strict logical rules,
then the conclusion must be correct—no exceptions.

So I still don't see anything that precludes two unrelated premises and an unrelated conclusion as there was no definition of "logical rules". Forgive my being so pedantic but more than 50 years as a computer programmer has conditionend me to be unambiguous. I fully (I think) understand the rules of logic even if my undergraduate course in logic is long in the past. I'm just trying to nail down a precise statement of what constitutes a valid deductive argument.

I apologize for the inadvertant down-vote. I was looking for the reply link (couldn't find it) and the up/down buttons did not have a tool tip indicating what they were for.

I'm looking forward to many interesting hours reading your book.

Not a problem, Jim.

Perhaps it is a "given" in logic that the conclusion must follow from the premises. The somewhat sloppy shorthand you referred to is often used to explain the difference between a valid and sound argument. When you say "It is obvious that the conclusion must relate to the preceding statements, and the premises must be related, but in logic, precision is paramount," I would agree - in logic classes, but in casual online debate, especially when both parties claim to be well versed in logic, leaving that out is acceptable.

Thnks for the clarity. Now back to the book.

[To Reverend Jim]

You say, “I'm just trying to nail down a precise statement of what constitutes a valid deductive argument.”

A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the person giving the argument to be such that it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. A valid deductive argument is a deductive argument that actually is such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

A deductive argument can be invalid. In which case, it is a bad deductive argument.  

You say, ‘So I still don't see anything that precludes two unrelated premises and an unrelated conclusion as there was no definition of "logical rules".’

It doesn’t preclude this, as you correctly see. A valid deductive argument can have unrelated premises and an unrelated conclusion. Due to the definition of validity, any argument whose premises are necessarily false is automatically a valid argument, regardless of whether the conclusion is “related” to the premises. This is because if an argument’s premises are necessarily false, then of course the argument is such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. For instance “I am a boy and not a boy, therefore the sky is blue” is a valid argument. That is not a failure to “nail down” a precise statement of what it means to be valid, in my opinion, but rather that is an oddity of this nailed-down definition of validity.

Better way to phrase this is "For an argument to be valid, the truth of its premises must guarantee the truth of its conclusion."

The most recent post in this thread is from Kaiden but I don't see a "reply to" for his post so I'll just reply here.

I don't need any further clarification but I will add that my original question was to a statement made in Dr. Bennet's book. I mentioned Matt Dillahunty only to point out that I'd heard the same statement word for word from another person who has demonstrated knowledge and ability in reasoning.

I maintain that the statement as posted was poorly worded. Dr. Bennett has since posted a much clearer (to me) version. My 50 years as a professional programmer has resulted in a certain level of expertise in that field. In the area of logic, however, I am much less accomplished so I hope you will forgive that my original question was not as precise as it could have been. I asked it out of a desire for clarification. My studies in this area continue.

Thank you all for your feedback.

Whatever clarity you needed from Dr. Bennett about his book, I’m glad you both have the issue settled now. Thank you both.