Logical Consequence: Does It Consequentially Follow?

[DISCLAIMER]

When providing psychoeducational lessons on my approach to Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), I find it useful to illustrate how the scripts which we tell ourselves are constructed (made or formed by combining or arranging parts or elements; set in logical order).

Specifically, with my approach to care for mental, emotional, and behavioral health (collectively “mental health”), I invite people to consider philosophies of life which are rational (in accordance with both logic and reason). Thus, it may be helpful to clarify a number of terms.

Logic is the interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable, and reason is a statement offered in explanation or justification. When considering how logic influences reason, I invite you to consider what one source states of this relationship:

Logical consequence (also entailment or logical implication) is a fundamental concept in logic which describes the relationship between statements that hold true when one statement logically follows from one or more statements. A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises.

The philosophical analysis of logical consequence involves the questions: In what sense does a conclusion follow from its premises? and What does it mean for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises? All of philosophical logic is meant to provide accounts of the nature of logical consequence and the nature of logical truth.

Logical consequence is necessary and formal, by way of examples that explain with formal proof and models of interpretation. A sentence is said to be a logical consequence of a set of sentences, for a given language, if and only if, using only logic (i.e., without regard to any personal interpretations of the sentences) the sentence must be true if every sentence in the set is true.

When considering whether or not a belief is rational, using logical consequence, I find it useful to consider asking oneself: Does it consequentially follow? For instance, a modus ponens syllogism uses the following logical form: If p, then q; p; therefore, q.

Major premise: If you understand how beliefs are constructed while using daily practice of the ABC model and unconditional acceptance techniques of REBT (p), then you’ll be less likely to self-disturb by use of irrational beliefs (q).

Minor premise: You understand how beliefs are constructed while using daily practice of the ABC model and unconditional acceptance techniques of REBT (p).

Conclusion: Therefore, you’ll be less likely to self-disturb by use of irrational beliefs (q).

For context, a syllogism is generally comprised of a major premise (e.g., if p, then q), a minor premise (e.g., p), and a resulting conclusion (e.g., q). For the sake of argument, it’s inferred that both premises which lead to a conclusion are presumed to be true.

Bear in mind that the premises in an argument, proposition, supposition, thought, or belief of this form will always lead to the conclusion. This is the case even when the premises aren’t actually true. Ergo, the logical consequence may consequentially follow, though it may be unreasonable.

Equally, in order to be considered rational, the argument, proposition, statement, or belief empirically must remain in accordance with both logic and reason. Otherwise, the proposed syllogism may simply follow logical form while not remaining in accord with reason.

Given this context, the syllogistic example I used follows logical form. Furthermore, I maintain that it’s reasonable, because REBT has over 50 years of data to support my belief in the effectiveness of this psychotherapeutic modality. Therefore, I maintain that my script is rational.

Noteworthy, when using the cited logical form, it’s inferred that premises p and q follow without fully completing the syllogistic form. As such, merely proposing ‘if p, then q’ assumes to represent truth about reality, which is why further assessment of the proposition is necessary.

Now, I’ll provide two final examples of modus ponens syllogisms. First, if you understand the value of a logical consequence (p), then it would be wise to ask yourself: Does it consequentially follow? (q). I maintain that further assessment of propositions is necessary, so think critically.

Last, if you practice REBT (p), then you’ll develop the ability of intergalactic flight (q). Here, it’s time to think critically. Given the logical consequence of my proposition (‘if p, then q’), does it consequentially follow that REBT will bestow you with the ability of intergalactic flight?

Of course not! “Don’t let’s be silly.” This is why asking questions about an argument, proposition, statement, or belief is necessary. After all, not all logical consequences are rational, as it may not consequentially follow that one statement leads to or causes a proposed conclusion.

If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.

As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.

At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!

Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW

Photo credit (edited), fair use

References:

David, D., Cotet, C., Matu, S., Mogoase, C., and Stefan, S. (2017, September 12). 50 years of rational‐emotive and cognitive‐behavioral therapy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal for Clinical Psychology. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5836900/

Denphumi. (n.d.). Hand stopping the domino effect stopped by unique [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/premium-photo/hand-stopping-domino-effect-stopped-by-unique_6200965.htm#from_element=cross_selling__photo

Hollings, D. (2025, October 19). Adhering to invisible scripts. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/adhering-to-invisible-scripts

Hollings, D. (2024, November 15). Assumptions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/assumptions

Hollings, D. (2024, March 19). Consequences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/consequences

Hollings, D. (2024, October 27). Correlation does not imply causation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/correlation-does-not-imply-causation

Hollings, D. (2024, November 4). Critical thinking. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/critical-thinking

Hollings, D. (2025, June 17). Daily practice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/daily-practice

Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2025, March 9). Factual and counterfactual beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/factual-and-counterfactual-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use

Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Feeling better vs. getting better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feeling-better-vs-getting-better-1

Hollings, D. (2025, March 5). Five major characteristics of four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/five-major-characteristics-of-four-major-irrational-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better

Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/

Hollings, D. (2024, May 10). Inferred meaning. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/inferred-meaning

Hollings, D. (2024, September 26). Interpreted reality. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interpreted-reality

Hollings, D. (2025, March 4). Justification. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/justification

Hollings, D. (2025, October 13). Knowledge, wisdom, understanding. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/knowledge-wisdom-understanding

Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching

Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason

Hollings, D. (2025, March 18). Material implication. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/material-implication

Hollings, D. (2024, March 4). Mental, emotional, and behavioral health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mental-emotional-and-behavioral-health

Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Modus ponens. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/modus-ponens

Hollings, D. (2025, August 2). My philosophy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-philosophy

Hollings, D. (2025, May 3). Predictability of logic. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/predictability-of-logic

Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth

Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation

Hollings, D. (2023, September 15). Psychotherapeutic modalities. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapeutic-modalities

Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist

Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt

Hollings, D. (2025, August 13). Rational versus irrational thoughts and beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-versus-irrational-thoughts-and-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2024, January 20). Reliability vs. validity. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reliability-vs-validity

Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism

Hollings, D. (2025, October 22). The construct. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-construct

Hollings, D. (2024, February 6). This ride inevitably ends. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/this-ride-inevitably-ends

Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal

Hollings, D. (2025, January 9). Traditional ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/traditional-abc-model

Hollings, D. (2024, October 20). Unconditional acceptance redux. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance-redux

TwilitDeityxX. (2011, January 3). Because we all know that mustard is better than tea. ;D [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/nlcgg6vfZKA

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Logic. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Logical consequence. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence