An argument has true premises, but its conclusion does not follow from them. What can you conclude?

### Why this is right If the conclusion does not follow from the premises, the argument is invalid. Soundness requires validity, so true premises cannot make this argument sound. ### The concept An argument's truth values and its logical support are separate matters. True premises may be arranged in a way that does not establish the conclusion. The cat-and-dog example illustrates this: all cats are mammals; dogs are mammals; therefore dogs are cats. Both premises are true, but they do not imply the conclusion. The conclusion can happen to be true or false without changing the validity classification. ### The other options - **B. It is valid but unsound**: conflicts with the description that the conclusion does not follow. - **C. It is sound because its premises are true**: omits the required condition of validity. - **D. Its conclusion must be false**: invalidity means the support fails, not that the conclusion must be false. ### Terms - **Invalid**: An argument whose premises could be true while its conclusion is false. - **Sound**: A valid argument with true premises. - **Conclusion**: The claim that the premises are meant to support. ### Remember True premises do not guarantee validity, and invalidity does not settle whether a conclusion is true.