mind your P's and Q's

Is their a solid premise leading to a true conclusion, or are all conclusions, conditional to the premise?

P then Q, the conclusion is P. However, If P then Q, Q then follows P resulting in the conclusion of Q.

With P then Q, is there ever a premise leading to a final undoubted conclusion? I am only questiong something that Lewis Carroll already has. Are conditional premises's a flaw in philosophical logic?

confused1

um, the latter?

oh, wait, i sorta see what you're saying....

Is their a solid premise leading to a true conclusion, or are all conclusions, conditional to the premise?

i'd have to say i think it's the latter, that all conclusions are conditional to the premise. it's sorta like Q and A, it all depends on the question you're asking, which will always effect the answer, or conclusion.

that's what you're saying, right?