The Importance of Internal Consistency in Arguments

The idea is that a good argument ought to be coherent, right? That if you find inconsistencies or self-contradictions or internal things that don't work logically and so on and so forth, then you've got a bad argument. But it's also true that coherence in and of itself is not sufficient, right? I mean, you can have a completely coherent argument that is nonetheless wrong because, for instance, it starts with wrong premises.