text: **Premises, conclusions, and truth**
  
  **Premises and conclusions**
  
  *Premises*and*conclusions*are the basic parts of inferences or arguments and therefore play a central role 
  in logic. In the case of a valid inference or a correct argument, the conclusion follows from the premises, 
  or in other words, the premises support the conclusion.[41] For instance, the premises "Mars is red" and 
  "Mars is a planet" support the conclusion "Mars is a red planet". For most types of logic, it is accepted 
  that premises and conclusions have to be truth-bearers.[41][a] This means that they have a truth value: they 
  are either true or false. Contemporary philosophy generally sees them either as*propositions*or as 
  *sentences*.[43] Propositions are the denotations of sentences and are usually seen as abstract objects.[44] 
  For example, the English sentence "the tree is green" is different from the German sentence "der Baum ist 
  grün" but both express the same proposition.[45] 
  
  Propositional theories of premises and conclusions are often criticized because they rely on abstract 
  objects. For instance, philosophical naturalists usually reject the existence of abstract objects. Other 
  arguments concern the challenges involved in specifying the identity criteria of propositions.[43] These 
  objections are avoided by seeing premises and conclusions not as propositions but as sentences, i.e. as 
  concrete linguistic objects like the symbols displayed on a page of a book. But this approach comes with 
  new problems of its own: sentences are often context-dependent and ambiguous, meaning an argument's 
  validity would not only depend on its parts but also on its context and on how it is interpreted.[46] Another 
  approach is to understand premises and conclusions in psychological terms as thoughts or judgments. 
  This position is known as psychologism. It was discussed at length around the turn of the 20th century 
  but it is not widely accepted today.[47] 