Reference no: EM132633800

1. If the premises of an argument, taken as a set, are inconsistent, is the argument valid, or invalid?

2. An argument can only be valid if the content of the premises provides reasonable, evidentiary support for the conclusion. Thus, there must be some reasonable connection between the premises and conclusion in any valid argument. True or false?

3. If one of the premises of an argument logically equivalent to a logically false sentence, then that argument may be valid or invalid, depending on the conclusion. True or false? Explain, appealing to the appropriate definitions.

4. Can an argument with a false conclusion be valid? If so, how? If not, why not? Explain, and you know the drill by now: appeal to the appropriate definitions.

5. Can an argument with a necessarily false conclusion be valid? If so, how? If not, why not?