Consider the following argument: All groups or institutions that spend money are businesses. All families are groups or institutions that spend money. Therefore, all families are businesses. This argument is invalid because:
A) the conclusion is true, and thus the argument is not truth preserving.
B) the premises are true, and thus the argument is truth preserving.
C) the premises and conclusion are false; it doesn't matter if truth is preserved.
D) the premises are true, but the conclusion is false (and thus the argument is not truth preserving).
I got the question wrong and the correct answer was apparently D, but I don't understand why. The question seemed wrong to begin with because it seems like the argument is valid in the first place.
1. All groups or institutions that spend money are businesses.
2. All families are groups or institutions that spend money.
3. Therefore, all families are businesses.
Doesn't the conclusion follow from the premises and is therefore valid?