STUDIES
recommended in the conclusion of the argument is the best course open to the agent." 2 Since there is no indication on his part that Baier does not wish the above assertions taken at face value, one is forced to conclude that in this instance he has based his argument on an elementary mistake in logic. As I understand him, Baier is saying that validity and a true conclusion are sufficient to establish the truth of a premise in an argument. That this is false can be shown by reference to any introductory logic text. In Critical Thinking, Max Black remarks: "There is no direct relation between the truth and the validity of a conclusion. A valid argument may have true premises and true conclusion; or false premises and false conclusion; or even false premises and true conclusion. A valid argument cannot, however, have all its premises true and its conclusion false." ~ Professor Baler seems to have moved in his thinking from the truth that a valid argument having true premises must have a true conclusion to the mistake that a true conclusion and validity of the argument guarantee the truth of the premises. If I am correct, some other way must be found to establish the truth of our "consideration-making" beliefs.