- Valid argument (or revisably so)
'Abortion is not wrong, because women have a right to control their bodies.' This is an 'argument', from a logical viewpoint, because it deduces a conclusion, 'Abortion is not wrong', from a premise, 'Women have a right to control their bodies.' In a deductively valid argument the premise warrants or guarantees the conclusion; the conclusion cannot be false if the premise is true. Actually more than one premise is required; and as you have framed the argument a premise is missing. You need :
i. Women have a right to control their bodies.
ii. Abortion (the availability of abortion) embodies the right of women to control their bodies.
iii. Abortion is not wrong.
This argument is valid. iii. cannot be false if i. and ii. are true. Whether they are true a matter of moral dispute. (Get clear on the distinction between the truth of premises/ conclusion and the validity of an argument. Neither yields the other. The distinction between truth and validity is widely explained online.)
i. All students love coffee.
ii. Jane loves coffee.
iii. Therefore, Jane is a student.
This argument is invalid. All students may love coffee but coffee is loved by other people than students. Jane may be one of these other people. Therefore it does not follow that she is a student. In other words the truth of the premises, 1. and ii. does not warrant or guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
The argument is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You can find this fallacy set out readily online. The argument may contain some truths, e.g. maybe all students love coffee but it is invalid.