trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Refuting an argument does not establish the falsity of its conclusion
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 0 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says

In logic, refuting a specific argument for a conclusion only shows that the particular argument fails; it does not demonstrate that the conclusion itself is false, as the conclusion might be established by other arguments or evidence.

Evidence for · 2
Wikipedia: Argument
cited by 0
Reference article covering this claim directly
See more details
How claims like this are judged

Judged against reference works: claims of this kind are settled by reference works, not journal abstracts.

More for · 1
Holt, Rinehart and Winston: An introductory logic
1979 · cited by 0
States that the falsity of one statement or the failure of an argument's support does not permit a determination of the truth or falsity of the related proposition.
Everything we examined (15) — 10 independent sources
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Wikipedia: Argumentreferencesupports
  2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Repugnant Conclusionreferencesame source L2no side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  3. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Chinese Room Argumentreferencesame source L2no side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  4. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Cosmological Argumentreferencesame source L2no side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  5. Routledge: Critical thinking : a concise guidereferencesame source L3no side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  6. Routledge: Critical thinking : a concise guidereferencesame source L3no side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  7. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: Understanding arguments : an introduction to informal logicreferenceno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  8. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: An introductory logicreferencesupports
  9. Thomson Wadsworth: A logic book : fundamentals of reasoningreferenceno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  10. Prentice Hall: Reason and argumentreferenceno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  11. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning: Fundamentals of reasoning : a logic bookreferenceno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  12. J. Munroe: Elements of logic : comprising the substance of the article in the Encyclopaedia metropolitana with additions, &c.referenceno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  13. Wikisource: Scientific Methods/Chapter 4referencesame source L10no side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  14. Wikisource: The Works of Aristotle/Prior Analytics/Book IIreferencesame source L10no side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  15. Wikisource: The Art of Controversy and Other Posthumous Papers/The Art of Controversyreferencesame source L10no side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked05 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 6305 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt