1. If the arguments have the same conclusions, but the premises in one argument contradict the premises in another argument, then these arguments cannot be used together. I am right?

2. For example I have two convincing arguments to justify belief in A:

Phenomenal conservatism and IBE (the best explanation argument).

These two arguments have the same conclusions but for example their premises are contradictory. I can't use them together.

Phenomenal conservatism is a simpler argument, but it is a weaker justification.

IBE is a more complex argument, but it is a strong justification.

Can I use these arguments individually depending on the situation? When I need a simple and not too strong justification, I use phenomenal conservatism.

If I need a strong justification, I stop using phenomenal conservatism and start using IBE.

Thus I could have many justifications for believing A, even though these justifications contradict each other and cannot be used together. But I want to ask if it is possible to do so, or should I immediately choose only those arguments that do not contradict each other?

1. If the arguments have the same conclusions, but the premises in one argument contradict the premises in another argument, then these arguments cannot be used together. I am right?

2. For example I have two convincing arguments to justify belief in M:

I have two arguments to justify my belief in M.

Argument A and argument B have the same conclusion, but the premises of argument A contradict the premises of argument B, so

I cannot use them together at the same time because they would contradict each other.

Can I use these two arguments separately when I need to? If I want to use argument A, I stop using argument B and start using argument A.

If I want to use argument B, I stop using argument A and start using argument B.

I want to know if I can do this or if I need to choose only one argument.

Will it be rational or not? Will there be any contradictions or not?