D.1. Derivation: It is only that we deduct additional concepts to see more explicitly the relation of our interest.
E.1. For instance, if X > Y, Z < A, and Y = A + 1, and if we are interested in truth of X < Z, we may infer that X > Y > A > Z and therefore it is false that X < Z since we deduce that X > Z. (From The concept of truth (M.1.2) implies the meaning of being logically derived from the given set of propositions)
E.2.1. Briefly speaking, the following is a guiding principal:
An antecedent implies a consequent, and absence of consequences implies absence of antecedents.
The relation between these two - antecedent and consequent - is always taken for granted during analysis to avoid an infinite regress into 'because of __ because of __ ......'.
E.2.2. Moreover, all components of a definition of a concept can be treated as consequent of the concept defined. Hence, if a concept is considered to be true, all its components are also true. The assumed consequents can also include the causal relations such as inflation and its cause loose monetary policy. Or consequents may in fact bear a psychological interpretations such as if someone can love, they can hate etc. They may merely be a regularity observed in data such as every time X happens Y follows (if X then Y). The assumed consequents thus range from components of a definition to anything assumed as a consequent.