Hello everyone,

I recently got interested in philosophy and am reading up on a few books this summer to familiarize myself with this field.

I am teaching myself from a book right now on Critical Reasoning and I need some help understanding a concept.

I came across an argument and I was wondering if anyone would be kind enough to help me out.

I was reading an article where the argument followed the pattern of 'Predicate Instantiation' and it stated,

Predicate Instantiation.

All P1's are P2's. m is a P1. Therefore, m is a P2.

P1: All new technologies that we can't/don't know all the potential ramifications of are radical and will create disruptions.

P2: Genetic engineering is a new technology that we don't know the potential ramifications of.

C: Genetic engineering is radical and will create disruptions.

Now I know for an argument to be sound it has to be valid and have all true premises. The above argument is valid in the sense that the conclusion follows from the premise but I am stuck on how to prove that Premise 1 is not always true.

The book I am reading said something about thinking of a situation where the antecedent is true but the consequent is false. I am stuck on this part. Can anyone help me understand or give an example of how I would prove Premise 1 to be false?

Again, I am learning this on my own from reading books which are confusing at times so if anyone can explain it to me in simpler terms, I would greatly appreciate it.