"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message news
> You've never understood it. You never will.
>
"This BULLSHIT about "the consequent isn't a
necessary condition for the antecedent to exist"
is just nonsense; there is no such requirement,
anywhere at any time."
Jonathan Ball 21-02-04

You need to study, Jon.

1.. If John is a citizen of Iowa, then John is a citizen of the USA.
2.. John is a citizen of Iowa.
3.. John is a citizen of the USA.

This sound syllogism illustrates two basic points:
(1) the antecedent must be a sufficient condition for the
consequent to be true (i.e., the antecedent cannot be true
without the consequent being true) and
(2) the consequent must be a necessary condition for the
antecedent to be true (i.e., the consequent must be true
in order for the antecedent to be true).
http://www.letusreason.com/archives/...ogic011598.htm

You clearly don't understand the subject as well
as you think, dummy. What a great start to the
day.