Frame talks about knowledge, he says knowledge is based on presupposition, situation, or evidences, and, uh, the third thing would be, uh, the, uh, oh goodness, see this is, it's not in my notes, I'm, I'm, huh, yeah, but it's, uh, existential, existential, existential, so this is actually not what I was wanting to get into, though, so, this is, I got confused, the three things that make up an argument, an argument should be valid, an argument should be sound, and an argument should be persuasive, that was the three things, so, so, excuse me, excuse me for that confusion, the presuppositional evidence and existential, that's a different, that's, that's a theory of knowledge, a tri-perspectival theory of knowledge, but the, when we talk about an argument, an argument should be valid, an argument should be sound, and an argument should be persuasive, so let's, for a moment, let's just talk about this, what makes something valid, valid means it follows the laws of reason and logic, for instance, if I said, all men who wear black shirts are jerks, Ross is wearing a black shirt, therefore Ross is a jerk, now does that, is that a valid argument, it is, because it follows the laws of logic, but is it a, is it a sound argument, the answer is no, because it is based on a false premise, all men who wear black shirts are not jerks, now Ross may be, he's not, but you understand the point, yeah, the one I used for you earlier, the pink shirt was a little different, all men who wear pink shirts, anyway, so, so, a valid argument is an argument that follows the laws of reason and logic, now all men who wear black shirts are jerks, Ross is wearing a black shirt, therefore Ross is a jerk, that is a valid argument, but it's not true, because it's not based on sound premises, right, so an argument should be valid, and it should be sound, meaning the premises should be true, and it should be persuasive, that was, I was, I got in my head two things, if you ever listen to Dr.