The revisionary approach to semantic paradox is commonly thought to have a somewhat uncomfortable corollary, viz. that, on pain of triviality, we cannot affirm that all valid arguments preserve truth (Beall 2007, 2009; Field 2008, (2009b). We show that the standard arguments for this conclusion all break down once (i) the structural rule of contraction is restricted and (ii) how the premises can be aggregated—so that they can be said to jointly entail a given conclusion—is appropriately understood. In addition, we briefly rehearse some reasons for restricting structural contraction.