Hey guys, I could really use your help. Lots of points and for a good answer.
I just need to determine if these arguments are valid or invalid reasoning.

Valid or Invalid? Women are the main breadwinners in two-thirds of families across the country.
Valid or Invalid? Employers pay different workers different salaries based on skill level.
Valid or Invalid? Paying people different salaries for the same work is discrimination.
Valid or Invalid? Pay discrimination hurts middle class families.
Valid or Invalid? Women are ready to fight back against pay discrimination.
It would also be really helpful if you could explain why, im a bit confused as to the definition of invalid reasoning.
Thanks!

In order really to hate white people, one has to blot so much out of the mind — and the heart — that this hatred itself becomes an exhausting and self-destructive pose. but this does not mean, on the other hand, that love comes easily: the white world is too powerful, too complacent, too ready with gratuitous humiliation, and, above all, too ignorant and too innocent for that. which sentence best explains how the use of parallelism in the excerpt supports baldwin's purpose? a. it proves baldwin's central idea by highlighting the obvious. b. it emphasizes the problems that prevent one from loving the white world. c. it explains why the white world is unable to replace hate with love. d. it enumerates the many ways of dealing with the white world.