Top Law Schools

So here's an example:

It is claimed that apples are delicious. I believe that if apples are delicious we should eat them.


How can a conditional statement in a conclusion be valid? What has to be known?

So is the conclusion assuming that apples being delicious are sufficient to know whether or not we should eat them?

Would weakening this involve stating that there are more elements to consider in determining whether or not to eat an apple?

I'm thinking your last sentence is the "most" correct.

brickman wrote:How can a conditional statement in a conclusion be valid?

The same way any other factual statement can be valid. What is so strange about it?

brickman wrote:So here's an example:
How can a conditional statement in a conclusion be valid? What has to be known?

It can be valid if it is shown that the necessary element always occurs when the sufficient element occurs. Which is to say, if it really is a conditional relationship.

Would weakening this involve stating that there are more elements to consider in determining whether or not to eat an apple?

Essentially, yes. I think the most straightforward way to think of this is that to disprove a conditional relationship, it must be shown that the sufficient condition can occur without the necessary condition occuring.

A --> B is disproved by

A & ~B

brickman wrote:So here's an example:

It is claimed that apples are delicious. I believe that if apples are delicious we should eat them.


How can a conditional statement in a conclusion be valid? What has to be known?

So is the conclusion assuming that apples being delicious are sufficient to know whether or not we should eat them?

Would weakening this involve stating that there are more elements to consider in determining whether or not to eat an apple?

The conclusion is not conditional.

The conclusion is that we should eat apples.

The evidence is that they're delicious.

The assumption is just cause something's delicious, we should eat it.

What if children are delicious? Can we eat them? That might weaken it. Mmmmm children!!!!!!!

justadude55 wrote:

brickman wrote:So here's an example:

It is claimed that apples are delicious. I believe that if apples are delicious we should eat them.


How can a conditional statement in a conclusion be valid? What has to be known?

So is the conclusion assuming that apples being delicious are sufficient to know whether or not we should eat them?

Would weakening this involve stating that there are more elements to consider in determining whether or not to eat an apple?

The conclusion is not conditional.

The conclusion is that we should eat apples.

The evidence is that they're delicious.

The assumption is just cause something's delicious, we should eat it.

What if children are delicious? Can we eat them? That might weaken it. Mmmmm children!!!!!!!

+1

The conclusion is implicit, and it is not conditional.

Nonetheless, there is nothing strange about a conditional conclusion. Consider the following argument.

A implies B. B implies C. Therefore, A implies C.

gotcha, gotcha.

thanks all.