2 added 130 characters in body edited Feb 5 at 22:18 Eliran 5,07444 gold badges1515 silver badges3535 bronze badges The argument is valid. It's easier to see if translated to symbols: ``````1. R v W premise 2. R → F premise 3. ~F premise 4. ~R entailed by 2-3 5. W → ~D premise 6. D premise 7. ~W entailed by 5-6 8. ~R & ~W entailed by 4&7 `````` The argument contains two sub-arguments: 2-4 and 5-7, (1 is superfluous, assuming in this context 'right' just means 'not wrong' and vice versa). The 2-4 argument is valid: it's a simple case of modus tollens. The 5-7 argument is valid for the same reason. 8 simply follows by conjoining the two conclusions 4 and 7. In general, valid arguments can have false conclusions, and in particular, they can have contradictory conclusions. When that happens that means that one or more of the premises of the argument must be false (because, if they were all true, the conclusion would have been true -- that's just what validity means). So what the argument above really shows is not that abortion is both right and wrong, but rather than one or more of the premises 2,3,5,6 must be false. The argument is valid. It's easier to see if translated to symbols: ``````1. R v W 2. R → F 3. ~F 4. ~R 5. W → ~D 6. D 7. ~W 8. ~R & ~W `````` The argument contains two sub-arguments: 2-4 and 5-7, (1 is superfluous, assuming in this context 'right' just means 'not wrong' and vice versa). The 2-4 argument is valid: it's a simple case of modus tollens. The 5-7 argument is valid for the same reason. 8 simply follows by conjoining the two conclusions 4 and 7. In general, valid arguments can have false conclusions, and in particular, they can have contradictory conclusions. When that happens that means that one or more of the premises of the argument must be false (because, if they were all true, the conclusion would have been true -- that's just what validity means). So what the argument above really shows is not that abortion is both right and wrong, but rather than one or more of the premises 2,3,5,6 must be false. The argument is valid. It's easier to see if translated to symbols: ``````1. R v W premise 2. R → F premise 3. ~F premise 4. ~R entailed by 2-3 5. W → ~D premise 6. D premise 7. ~W entailed by 5-6 8. ~R & ~W entailed by 4&7 `````` The argument contains two sub-arguments: 2-4 and 5-7, (1 is superfluous, assuming in this context 'right' just means 'not wrong' and vice versa). The 2-4 argument is valid: it's a simple case of modus tollens. The 5-7 argument is valid for the same reason. 8 simply follows by conjoining the two conclusions 4 and 7. In general, valid arguments can have false conclusions, and in particular, they can have contradictory conclusions. When that happens that means that one or more of the premises of the argument must be false (because, if they were all true, the conclusion would have been true -- that's just what validity means). So what the argument above really shows is not that abortion is both right and wrong, but rather than one or more of the premises 2,3,5,6 must be false. 1 answered Feb 4 at 1:05 Eliran 5,07444 gold badges1515 silver badges3535 bronze badges The argument is valid. It's easier to see if translated to symbols: ``````1. R v W 2. R → F 3. ~F 4. ~R 5. W → ~D 6. D 7. ~W 8. ~R & ~W `````` The argument contains two sub-arguments: 2-4 and 5-7, (1 is superfluous, assuming in this context 'right' just means 'not wrong' and vice versa). The 2-4 argument is valid: it's a simple case of modus tollens. The 5-7 argument is valid for the same reason. 8 simply follows by conjoining the two conclusions 4 and 7. In general, valid arguments can have false conclusions, and in particular, they can have contradictory conclusions. When that happens that means that one or more of the premises of the argument must be false (because, if they were all true, the conclusion would have been true -- that's just what validity means). So what the argument above really shows is not that abortion is both right and wrong, but rather than one or more of the premises 2,3,5,6 must be false.