Calling All Philosopher's - $$$ to be won! (in Off-topic)

Anyone with any knowledge of Philosophy who understands the difference between a valid and an inductive argument could earn a decent monetary reward for helping me out.

I need a valid argument and an inductive argument to support the following claims:

1) Tomorrow will be another sunny day

2) What goes up must come down.

I've already written my own, but I'm interested in seeing if anyone can offer something better! If anyone wants to have a stab at it and isn't sure what a valid or an inductive argument is, ask me and I shall inform!

Inductive arguments aren't said to be valid or invalid. They are said to be strong or weak. Validity, or more specifically deductive validity, is a technical term reserved for deductive arguments. Soundness too is reserved for deductive arguments. So you won't beable to come up with an inductive argument which is valid and sound. I take it that the argument you've presented is a deductive argument which is invalid. I don't see how, as stated, that is an inductive argument.

Valid

1) The earth revolves around the sun

The side of the earth facing the sun gets sunshine

tomorrow the sun will shine on one face of the earth

Tomorrow will be another sunny day

2) Gravity exists on large physical masses in space.

The earth is a large physical mass and has gravity

Gravity causes things that go up to come

What goes up must come down.

Inductive

1) It has been a sunny say for 7 days straight

The forecasters say it will be sunny tomorrow

Tomorrow will be another sunny day

2) everytime I toss a ball into the air it comes down

If I toss this ball into the air it will come down

What comes up must come down.

Valid #1 is a little stretch about the definition of a "sunny" day, but regardless of cloud cover the sun will shine on one side of the earth, thus it could be considered sunny.

Inductive #2 is also a little stretch because there is no way to say inductively all objects are alike.

Best I could do reaching WAY back to college philo, hope it helps :)

Fool, Sefton clearly understood my post and I'm grateful to him for his input! I never claimed that either the valid or inductive arguments had to be sound :)

You may want to included a nested argument to valid 1)

It is sunny when there is not complete cloud cover

Clouds never cover all the sky over all the world

Somewhere it will be a sunny day tomorrow

You make a good point Stephen!

I wouldn't think that many philosophers would want to be known for coming when they are called.