X agreed to sexual activity with Y.

Therefore, X has a contract with Y for sexual activity.

Pineau argues that this argument is invalid. Adding which of the following premises would make it a valid (not sound!) argument (select all that apply):

Question

X agreed to sexual activity with Y.

Therefore, X has a contract with Y for sexual activity.

Pineau argues that this argument is invalid. Adding which of the following premises would make it a valid (not sound!) argument (select all that apply):

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question asks which additional premises would render Pineau's argument valid (though not necessarily sound). We start by restating the core claim: 'X agreed to sexual activity with Y' implies 'X has a contract with Y for sexual activity.' The validity of this inference depends on how we connect agreements to contracts.

Option 1: 'All agreements are contracts.' If this premise were added, then from 'X agreed to sexual activity' (an agreement) we can legitimately infer 'X has a contract for sexual activity' (since every agreement qualifies as a contract). In logical terms, Agreement → Contract is true for all cases, so the argument would be formally valid under this addition. The potential issue is not validity but soundness: not every agreement is actually a contract in real-world law, but the question specifically asks about validity, so this premise would make the form valid.

Option 2: 'Agreeing to do an action is a sufficient condition for having a contract to do that action.' A sufficient condition means: if the action is agreed to, then a contract exists for that action. Under this premise, from 'X agreed to sexual activity' we are guaranteed a contract for that activity. Therefore, the inference 'X has a contract with Y for sexual activity' follows validly. Again, this changes the argument's form to be valid, though not necessarily sound in real-world terms, since the premise asserts a general rule about contracts.

In sum, both options provide premises that would convert the argument into a valid form by establishing a direct logical link between agreement and contract. Neither option is about the truth of the real-world relationship beyond the logical structure required for validity; they simply supply rules that guarantee the conclusion follows from the premise.

The remaining possibilities would involve rejecting any general link between agreements and contracts or between agreement and contractual existence, which would fail to produce a valid form. Since only the two given premises are under consideration, each one independently can yield a valid argument if adopted as a premise.

X agreed to sexual activity with Y. Therefore, X has a contract with Y for sexual activity. Pineau argues that this argument is invalid. Adding which of the following premises would make it a valid (not sound!) argument (select all that apply):Multiple choice

Similar Questions

P1. Pornography can cause harm. C. We should ban pornography. Which premises can we add (individually) that would make the argument valid:

Is the following argument valid or invalid?P1. Start-ups with young founders always succeed.P2. Ms. Lee is the founder of a start-up.P3. Ms. Lee is young.Therefore,C. Ms. Lee's start-up will succeed.

What pioneering technique is being used by Musk and Bezos to reduce the cost of space travel?

What is the different approach that Allen and Branson are taking, compared with other organisations?

In the article, what is the billionaires’ attitude toward space travel?

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler