But we have to note that we are applying it to a different case. Me is "an explicit deduction" from Ma (this is specially necessary in order to make (2) hold good). That is to say, in this case the Logical Priority is that of Premisses to their Conclusion. And the same requirements of the definition of Logical Priority have to be satisfied in this case as were shown to be satisfied in the relations of Consequent to Antecedent and of Conclusion to Premisses. Thus Logical Priority is ascribed both to Premisses over Conclusion and to Conclusion over Premisses. Obviously, then, their relative implications must be differently stated to support these two conflicting pretensions to Priority; and we shall see how this is done.
For here it is asserted that (1) truth of Premisses (Ma) does not imply that of Conclusion (Me); but that (2) truth of Conclusion (Me) implies truth of Premisses (Ma); in other words, (see (1) and (2) on p. 64) that (1) Conclusion (Me) might be false, without Premisses (Ma) being false; and that (2) if Premisses (Ma) were false, the Conclusion (Me) must be false.
To affirm these implications of Conclusion and Premisses respectively is flatly to contradict the traditional rules of Formal Logic, which say that if the Consequent or Conclusion is false the Antecedent or one Premiss at least must be false, in other words, Truth of Antecedent or Premisses implies that of Consequent or Conclusion; but that the falsehood of the Antecedent or Premisses does not involve that of the Consequent or Conclusion, in other words, Truth of Conclusion or Consequent does not imply that of Premisses or Antecedent.
