A few general questions

[allison.cho77]

Hi,

I got a few questions.

1. If I remember correctly, it is a flaw to say a conclusion is false because its assumption is false? But, we know that if an assumption is false, an argument is false, right? Then, is it a flaw to say just because an assumption is false, a conclusion which relies on it is false. But it is not a flaw to say a reasoning/argument is false?

2. When an argument uses a word 'misguided', 'unfounded', or 'ill-advised', can we safely say it means 'false'? Or does it mean 'unsubstantiated'? I read a post saying there's a difference between false conclusion and unsubstantiated conclusion, so I am a bit confused. Thanks!

[chike_eze]

The key is differentiating between what is not necessarily false and what is necessarily false. The former could be false or true while the latter can only be false.

When u evaluate arguments, u are trying to figure out to what extent the premises lead to the conclusion. That a set of premises dont lead to conclusion X does not make conclusion X false. It only means that that the evidence (premises) do not lead to conclusion X. This is what is meant by the conclusion is not substantiated by the evidence provided. That is, the link between premises and conclusion is weak!!

Also, you should make a clear distinction between necessary and sufficient assumptions. Both are used to defend/strengthen arguments, but in different ways.