I'm teaching myself logic from 'Logic: The Laws of Logic'. In this book it states that 1) any sequence of propositions counts as an argument. 2) valid is when true premises of an argument cannot lead to a false conclusion. Now look at this argument: A Therefore A → B I struggle to intuitively understand how this is a valid argument. Simply stating "not-A informs us of A's truth value, therefore aids in understanding the conditional" does not help. Since I don't intuitively see that not-A regulates anything about B. E.g. Anne isn't cool. Therefore if Anne is cool then Beth is cool. Please explain. Also please explain how this argument would be criticised. E.g. because it's incomplete or?? Thank you for your time!