1. **State the problem:** Determine whether the argument "Every beach bum owns a pair of flip-flops. Randy is not a beach bum. Therefore, Randy does not own a pair of flip-flops." is a valid or invalid deduction. 2. **Understand the logic:** The argument structure is: - Premise 1: All beach bums own flip-flops. - Premise 2: Randy is not a beach bum. - Conclusion: Randy does not own flip-flops. 3. **Recall the rule:** From "All A are B" and "Not A", you cannot conclude "Not B". This is a logical fallacy called "denying the antecedent". 4. **Explanation:** Just because Randy is not a beach bum does not mean he cannot own flip-flops. He might own flip-flops for other reasons. 5. **Conclusion:** The argument is **invalid** because the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. **Final answer:** Invalid