Premise- Since most all disease can be effectively prevented by a healthy lifestyle.

Conclusion-Animal activist sometimes contend that medical research is unneccessary.
Is this a valid/sound argument or is this an ivalid/unsound argument?

It's invalid/unsound.

The premise is wrong.

To evaluate the validity and soundness of the argument, we need to examine its logical structure and the truth of its premises and conclusion.

First, let's analyze the argument:

Premise 1: Most all diseases can be effectively prevented by a healthy lifestyle.
Premise 2: Animal activists sometimes contend that medical research is unnecessary.

Conclusion: Therefore, medical research is unnecessary.

Validity refers to whether the argument's structure is logically sound or follows a valid form. We can establish the validity by examining the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion.

The argument you presented is not valid because there is no logical connection between Premise 1 and Premise 2. Even if all diseases can be prevented by a healthy lifestyle, it does not necessarily mean that medical research becomes unnecessary. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

Soundness, on the other hand, deals with both the argument's logical validity and whether the premises are true. It requires not only a valid structure but also true premises.

Since the argument is not valid, we cannot assess its soundness. However, we can mention that the first premise isn't entirely accurate. While a healthy lifestyle can contribute to disease prevention, it is not a guarantee against all diseases. There are many factors beyond lifestyle (such as genetic predisposition) that play a role in the development and prevention of diseases.

In conclusion, the argument you presented is invalid and thus cannot be considered sound because the premises do not provide sufficient support for the conclusion.