A valid argument is often defined as one in which it is not

A circular argument is sometimes defined as one in which one of the premises is identical to the conclusion.


So, in a circular argument, if the premises are all true, the conclusion must be true: the conclusion is the same as one of the premises.

durgesh79 wrote:
A valid argument is often defined as one in which it is not possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false.


Since the conclusion of a circular argument is the same as one of the premises, if the premises are all true, the conclusion cannot be false. Thus, circular arguments are 'valid arguments', according to the definitions. A.


So, in a circular argument, if the premises are all true, the conclusion must be true: the conclusion is the same as one of the premises.



Since the conclusion of a circular argument is the same as one of the premises, if the premises are all true, the conclusion cannot be false. Thus, circular arguments are 'valid arguments', according to the definitions. A.

Hi,

Shouldn't the above explanation also make option D right. ?
D. Some circular arguments are valid, and some are not.

I think D is wrong due to the expression of "some (CA) are not (valid)". CA is premise = conclusioin. It should be valid since, under CA, if premise is true, conclusion is to be true, if p is not true, then conclusion is not true. Any other thoughts?

I would say D,

Reason:

Premise 1: True

Premise 2 True

Conclusion : True (as conclusion = Premise 1)

Thus Valid Argument


Premise 1: True

Premise 2 : False

Conclusion : True (as conclusion = Premise 1)

Not a valid argument in this case.

hence sometimes valid and sometimes invalid.

From the question, "A valid argument is often defined as one in which it is not possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false." There is nothing in this definition to suggest that false premises make an argument invalid.

There are only 2 values that the premise and conclusions can take. True and False. Thus the question states that

A valid argument is often defined as one in which it is not possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false

from this we can infer that if one of the premises is not true(= false) then the conclusion cannot be true (for a valid argument that is!!)

That is not a valid inference. While the question doesn't say that there are only two values the premise and conclusion can take, it doesn't make a difference if we assume this to be the case. An argument is valid if:

If the premises are true, the conclusion is true.

The lone inference we can make from this is the contrapositive (from "If A then B" you can always conclude "If not B then not A"). That is, we can conclude:

If the conclusion is false, the premises are false (well, at least one of them is).

The inference you have made, "If the premises are false, the conclusion is false", is called the 'inverse'. That is, you've translated "If A then B" into "If not A then not B". This is not a legitimate inference to draw, as I will illustrate with an example. Suppose I'm standing next to a swimming pool, and have no shelter nearby. Then the following may be true:

"If it rains, I get wet."

We can certainly deduce the contrapositive:

"If I'm not wet, it's not raining."

We cannot conclude the inverse:

"If it's not raining, I'm not wet". I might be in the swimming pool.

Equivalently, we cannot deduce the converse (I say equivalently, because the converse is the contrapositive of the inverse- they're logically the same):

"If I'm wet, it's raining." Again, I might be swimming.

Nice explanation..here's some additional info....

Here's how a circular argument would look like

Premise 1 : The woman says she is not mad
Premise 2 : Whatever the woman says is true
Conclusion : The woman is not mad. (= premise 1)

more like A-->B-->C-->A

Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole.

Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.

Good discussion Guys, the OA is A. Below is the OE, which i dint understand.

"(A) Some people find this paradoxical, but it follows directly that circular arguments are valid. If the premises are true, and the conclusion is one if the premises, it must be true. Another trick here is the word 'valid'. Just because an argument is valid, does not mean it is true. Many people will make that false assumption and be thrown off on this question."

took long time to understand this. But agree with A.

Valid argument --> Often, all premises cannot be true, conclusion cannot be false
Circular argument --> sometimes, premise = conclusion

(A) Every circular argument is valid as long as its premises are true.

If premises are true --> conclusion is true (Circular argument) --> and conclusion cannot be false in valid argument --> In this case, conclusion is true and hence circular argument is valid as long as its premises are true.

certainly A is true...for a valid argument conclusion should be true while some premise can be true.Therefore for circular argument to be true the premise should be true as the truth for the conclusion is mandatory

I think VA Conclusion can be true only when all the premises are true. In a CA if all the premises are true then the conclusion is true and it is equal to VA. Hence A is correct.

Is it just me or is the language a little iffy.

A valid argument is often defined as one in which it is not possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false. A circular argument is sometimes defined as one in which one of the premises is identical to the conclusion.

Look at the part in bold. I know logically it would mean that it is not possible for the conclusion to be false, but I thought it was a trick question and it mean that not all premises to be true AND conclusion must be false. Just thought the language was very awkward.

If that's the case, then u would read it as premise = false / conclusion = false for valid argument. The multiple choices confirmed that my interpretation is wrong, but wasted valuable time in figuring that out.

A valid argument= it is not possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
-- if all premise true then conclusion true
-- if one among the many conclusion false then conclusion can be false
-- if all false then conclusion false

A circular argument is sometimes defined as one in which one of the premises is identical to the conclusion.
-- premise = conclusion

so,

(A) Every circular argument is valid as long as its premises are true. Correct,
for a circular arg. premise = conclusion, and this is possible when all the argument in Valid arg. are true. Hope this helps.

A valid argument is often defined as one in which it is not possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false. A circular argument is sometimes defined as one in which one of the premises is identical to the conclusion.

ARGUMENT SAYS THAT not possible for the conclusion TO BE false. IT MEANS THAT Conclusion has to be true.......
Now in circular argument - one of the premises is identical to the conclusion.
Hence, if the premise is true and identical to conclusion.....the conclusion is also true. This circular argument in which premise is true and conclusion true- is a valid argument as per definition above.....If other premises are also true( though not an essential requirement) the argument is still valid.

Only A correctly mentions this . Hence answer = A.

'If other premises are also true( though not an essential requirement) the argument is still valid' -- i don't understand how does an argument turn out to be valid when all other premises are also try since the question states 'it is not possible for all the premises to be true'.

Could you please shed some light on that?

AS A RETHOUGHT........

how can A be right ?
(A) Every circular argument is valid as long as its premises are true..... IF ALL PREMISES ARE TRUE, THEN THE CONCLUSION IS TRUE AS THE CONCLUSION IS ONE OF THE PREMISES WHICH IS TRUE.........

BUT this argument cannot be valid as the definition of valid argument says that
condition 1. at least one premise has to be false.....THIS CONDITION IS NOT MET HERE......
condition 2. Conclusion cant be false.......THIS CONDITION IS MET......

But because of " CONDITION 1 NOT BEING MET" this circular argument cant be valid !!!!!!!

Request EXPERTS TO EXPLAIN whats wrong with this line of thought........

Dear IanStewart

I interpreted the sentence above in two ways:


All the premises are true = action 1
The conclusion is false = action 2

So, a valid argument is the one in which it’s impossible for action 1 and action 2 happen at the same time.
I interpreted the sentence this way only after coming across this website that clearly writes “at the same time” (first line). However, I initially interpreted it only as below:


Here, action 1 and action 2 can happen separately, not necessarily at the same time. In other words, if all premises are true, then the argument is invalid. If the conclusion is false, then the argument is invalid. Now I know that such interpretation is incorrect. However, what does prevent me from understanding it this way? Is that because of “and” ?

Thank you very much beforehand.