Interesting concept: I'll go if you go.

Chapter 6 in Epstein covered different forms of arguments using conditionals. Again, these forms are very standard and common in regular discussion, but it gets interesting when the textbook breaks everything down. The more technical the text is, the more complex the argument seems. But it could be something as simple as the direct and indirect way of reasoning with conditionals...

The DIRECT form is:

If A, then B.
A

So B.

The INDIRECT form is:
If A, then B.

Not A

So not B.

These are both valid arguments, however not necessarily good arguments, for premises could be false. For example, you hear about a big party coming up and you’re debating whether or not to go. This is probably the most common thing to hear or say: “I’m going if she’s going.” To put it into context.

DIRECT:
If she’s going, then I’m going.
She is going

So I’m going.

INDIRECT:
If she’s going, then I’m going.
She is not going
So I’m not going.

This is all valid. But what if she does in fact end up showing up to the party after all? Or what if she is just telling people she doesn’t want to go but she really does? This argument would then be valid but not good, due to a false premise. But I hope she goes, so that I go!