An experimental study of classical truth logic on multi-propositions consistent and incompatible: Dual-process theories and modal syllogistic of deduction.

This study looked at a classical truth logic of multi-propositions that is new in some ways: [1] Alethic modalities were mixed with logical consistency and incompatibility in a single plate form, i.e., necessary consistency (NC), possible consistency (PC)/ possible incompatibility (PI) and impossible incompatibility (IPI); [2] multi-propositions were judged by individuals as either NC, PC/PI, or IPI; [3] Four quantifiers; All (∀), No (∼∀), Some (∃), and Some Not (∼∃) of four propositional modes and three shapes ([Formula: see text], ▱ and [Formula: see text]) are used to evaluate predictions; and [4] it inspired by multi-propositional of dual-process theories (DPTs) of deduction and modal syllogistic of multi-propositions, from which logicians have derived general hypotheses. HP 1- Individuals will more likely to endorse inferences as PC/PI rather than NC. HP 2: It's easier to calculate that inference has PC/ PI if it has also NC. Generally, logicians predict more endorsing PC for NC than for PI proposition. HP 3: It's easier to calculate that inference is not NC if it is also not PC. Generally, logicians predict more PI than IPI proposition endorses as NC. A modal syllogistic as a classical truth logic is presented by multi-propositions (two premises and one inference), each one from four modes has quantifiers such as universal quantifiers and existential quantifier; ∀, ∼∀, ∃, and ∼ ∃. They were evaluated by a single-mental model (Experiment I) and a multi-mental model (Experiment II). Logicians applied the immediate inference task (IIT), evaluation task (ET), and production task (PT) to evaluate three experiments. The results of the experiments suggested that students mostly endorsed PC/PI inferences over NC inferences. Even when logicians divided PC/PI separately as PC and PI, individuals endorsed PC most likely as compared to NC, and PI than IPI. Logicians also highlighted fallacies that were continuously resisted and endorsed when students were asked to judge multi-propositions that had NC. The purpose of this experimental study is to present a glimpse of students' endorsement of multi-propositions and explain that each individual has a different working memory and intelligence.