The necessity of the compatibility in all elements of logic is something that has never been denied among Muslims intellectuals. Throughout the history of logic, any possible inconsistency in the rules of logic, albeit small, has led to a careful study by Muslim logicians. In the continuation of this process, the present text introduces an important inconsistency in the current views of the logicians. In contemporary opinion, the division of predicative proposition into three categories: actuality, mental, and factual (with differences in interpretation) has been endorsed by most Islamic logicians and philosophers. It is claimed that this division is independent of the rest of the rules of logic and can be accepted without changing the syllogism expressed in the logical tradition. In this paper, it is presented that elements of the CONDITIONAL-predicative CONJUNCTIVE syllogisms can only be accepted if the predicative propositions are factual. This claim is proved by examining the CONDITIONAL-predicative CONJUNCTIVE syllogism by sharing an incomplete part and the middle term is a part of CONDITIONAL consequence. This part of the syllogism in the tradition of Avicennian logic is considered the most obvious example of CONDITIONAL-predicative syllogism with a shared incomplete part. Careful examination of the evidence in the books of the Avicennian logicians has shown the validity of our claim.

In the Avicennian system of logic, the types of propositions are exclusive to categorical propositions, CONJUNCTIVE CONDITIONAL propositions, and disjunctive CONDITIONAL propositions. So, this important question arises: Why Avicennian logicians have not addressed conjunctions? Our attempt in the current research is, to provide an acceptable answer to the question. In the Avicennian logic, the criterion for a sentence being a proposition is that by saying it, a single judgment is expressed by the speaker. According to the criterion, categorical and CONDITIONAL propositions are considered to be types of proposition because expressing them implies only a single judgment. As a result, CONJUNCTIVE propositions cannot be placed as a type of propositions, next to categorical and CONDITIONAL propositions; because unlike the parts of CONDITIONAL sentences, which do not have truth value, expressing a CONJUNCTIVE proposition implies several judgment, and its parts have truth value during the combination.

Avicenna has been the first in the history of logic to discuss in detail the quality and the quantity of the CONJUNCTIVE - CONDITIONAL predicate (gozare- ha - ye sartT -e mottasele). He presented in simple terms the general and particular problems posed by this kind of sentence, as well as the condition of affirmation or negation. Although this analysis enabled him to precise numerous points, he didnt give a final formal system on this subject, mainly because he mixed the common and acceptable logic of the CONDITIONAL predicates, which lead to a number of contradictions. Avicenna is considered as the founder of conjuctive - CONDITIONAL syllogism. Apparently. he intended to compare CONDITIONAL predicates with categorical ones, and basing himself on their similarity, he used the same kind of logic for both.

In the view of Muslim logicians, the role of the middle term in syllogism is very fundamental. The middle term in each CONJUNCTIVE syllogism puts the other two terms together and creates a new knowledge not specified in the introduction. One of the main pillars of the CONDITIONAL CONJUNCTIVE syllogism division is the division based on the common component (part) between the premises of syllogism. Premises in CONDITIONAL CONJUNCTIVE syllogism, including the component's syllogism of two CONJUNCTIVEs, are either common in the complete part or in the incomplete. And the incomplete component is either a concept or a proposition. Each of the minor and major of syllogisms, the middle term of which is part of their antecedent and consequent, has one participant and one non-participant side. The result of the composition of the participant sides that make the categorical syllogism is part of the result of the CONDITIONAL syllogism. Muslim logicians have deduced this CONDITIONAL CONJUNCTIVE syllogism in two different ways. The first method is related to Zayn al-Din al-Kashshī , in which the result of the syllogism is a CONDITIONAL CONJUNCTIVE, the consequent of which is also CONJUNCTIVE. But the second method is that of khonji, in which the result of the syllogism is a CONDITIONAL CONJUNCTIVE, which is CONJUNCTIVE to both consequent and antecedent. In this article, the method of Kashshī is investigated. This method has been explained and developed by later logicians such as Abharī , Ṭ ū sī , Kā tibī , Shahrazū rī and Ḥ illī , syllogism based on the position of the participant side has four types in the premises of syllogism. The participant side in the first category is in the minor and major consequent, in the second category is in the minor and major antecedent, and in the third category is in the minor consequent and major antecedent, and in the fourth category, the participant part is in the antecedent of both premises. The condition for validity of compound syllogism (polysyllogism) is consisting of common premises in incomplete component, from the point of view of Kashshī , is that firstly the premises are affirmative, secondly it is at least one of the premises should be universal premise, and thirdly either the composition of the two participant sides should be effective, or the composition of a minor consequent with the result of the composition of the two participant sides to the, major premise or will result its implicated result. Kashshī bases the first type and returns the second and third types to the first type by using conversion rule. The following syllogism is an example for the first category: 1. If a is b then c is d 2. If s is p then d is e ∴ If a is b then [if s is p then c is e] But in the fourth category, the common boundary is in the minor and the major antecedent. As: 1. If some d are c, then a is b. 2. If no d is not e, then s is p This category cannot be returned to the first category with conversion because both premises become particular (partial) and the condition of the syllogism validity disappears. Kashshī 's initiative to infer this kind is to use a hypothetical premise. The role of the hypothetical premise is to establish the necessary connection between minor and major [terms] and the inference is possible. According to Kashshī 's initiative, the result of the syllogism is: ∴ Sometimes if a is b then [if no c is not e then s is p] According to the first premise, sometimes if we accept the proposition "if a is b", the proposition "some d are, c" will be true. Now, if we assume that the proposition "No c is not e" is true, we will conclude: "Sometimes if a is b then [if no c is not e then no d is not e]" we can deduce the syllogism by combining this proposition with the second premise. Now, as can be seen in the example, according to Kashshī 's method, the result of the syllogism is a CONJUNCTIVE proposition in which the non-participant (non-common) side is the one of the CONJUNCTIVEs, and its consequent is the CONJUNCTIVE condition, one part of which is the non-participant (non-common) side of the other preposition and the other part is the preposition whose terms are noncommon components of the participant sides. In the first three categories, the result of the combination of the participant sides involved in the consequent is the result of the consequent and in the fourth category, the antecedent of the consequent is the result of the CONDITIONAL syllogism. Among these, the explanations of Abharī and Ṭ ū sī are quite distinct, critical and complementary. Abharī has made several comments in his work. In the first writing of Muntahā al-afkā r, by accepting the validity of syllogism, in addition to the conclusive moods (logical multiplication) of Kashshī , he adds another moods. But in the second writing of Muntahā al-Afkā r, Kashf alḥ aqā ʾ iq and Khulā ṣ at al-afkā r return from this point of view and reject the validity of syllogism, and finally accept the validity of syllogism with disjunctive conclusions in Khulā ṣ at al-afkā r and Kashf al-ḥ aqā ʾ iq. But Ṭ ū sī , unlike Kashshī , considers the first category as the basis of all four categories. He uses the contraposition rule to refer the fourth category to the first category. By examining the differences of opinions about types, conditions of validity, conclusive moods (logical multiplication) and the reason of this type of syllogism, it is obtained that firstly, the validity of this syllogism is based on a syllogism whose middle term is a complete component (part) and secondly the presence of categorical syllogism components in the illation (inferential, deduction) system of hypothetical syllogism have made it difficult to clearly understand the structure of hypothetical syllogisms. Thirdly, it seems that by combining (synthesis) the comments of Abharī and Ṭ ū sī , one can achieve a single system (mechanism) of CONDITIONAL syllogisms with incomplete middle term. This inferential system (mechanism) has a basis discursive (argumentative) form, and that is the basic or deductive discursive (argumentative) form, which is the participant of minor consequent in both premises, or the deductive, which is the participant in the minor consequent and the major antecedent. If we show the nonparticipant (non-common) sides of minor and major with "P" and "Q" and the sides of their participation with "M1" and "M2", the inferential form of the first base is: 1. If P then M1 2. If Q then M2 3. If M1 and M2 then M ∴ If P then if Q then M And the inferential form of the second base is: 1. If P then M1 2. If M2 then Q 3. If M1 and M then M2 ∴ If P then if M then Q Using the rules of conversion and contraposition rules, all non-base syllogisms are returned to the base syllogism.

Most traditional grammarians in describing CONJUNCTIVE make use of metaphoric genitive construction. However, one can see that there is a great difference between the two genitive constructions. The most important difference is the analogical structure which exists in the metaphoric genitive construction but it does not exist in CONJUNCTIVE. Unlike grammarians who consider that the adjunct in this genitive construction is the main goal in CONJUNCTIVE, what is considered here is the combination of the adjunct and the governed word and not just either of them alone. In most of the sentences in which there is a CONJUNCTIVE, if we omit the adjunct or the governed word, the sentence will have a figurative meaning, a meaning which derives from the genitive construction. The strategy that traditional grammarians have suggested for identifying the characteristics of CONJUNCTIVE is incorrect. Grammarians who have studied the subject from a linguistic perspective also did not explain this properly and they have only paid attention to the appearance of the compound and have neglected the meaning differences. This study concludes that in explaining the CONJUNCTIVE we should not make a comparison between CONJUNCTIVE and metaphoric genitive construction. The only resemblance of these two genitive constructions is in the structure “core+e+dependent.”If in examining genitive constructions only the structure is considered, all of the genitive constructions will be put in one group. But paying attention only to the form of the compound does not complete the grammatical concepts. In grammatical investigations, it is better to consider the structure and meaning at the same time. Having said that the purpose of CONJUNCTIVE is the figurative meaning of this kind of genitive construction and is not the adjunct or the governed word alone.

CONJUNCTIVE use operation policies play a vital role in the sustainability of water resources and their optimal allocation. To be realistic conditions of real water resource system should be considered in simulation and derivation of operating rules of real-world water resource system. In this research, the combined fuzzy logic and direct search optimization technique is used to account for the uncertainty associated with parameters affecting groundwater table level fluctuations. These parameters include specific yields and inflow recharge and outflow discharge from the aquifer, which are typically uncertain. A membership function is determined for each parameter using hydrogeologic and piezometric data. For each membership value (a level cut), the corresponding intervals are determined. These intervals are considered as constraints on the membership value of the groundwater table level fluctuations in the optimization model. The process is repeated for other a level cuts to obtain the fuzzy number. For the uncertainty influencing the water demands, a CONJUNCTIVE use model with water resources constraints is developed. Using this model, the priorities for the different zones and their optimal allocations are determined. The results show that the better the real conditions are reflected in the CONJUNCTIVE use model, the better will the system be reliably capable of handling the water demands. The results of the proposed model also indicate that it present reliable allocations compared to the static conventional models and that it performs more desirably and practically in allocating supplies to water demands as it duly includes the opinions of the decision-makers involved.

Contingency fee is one of the common institutions of common law legal system particularly in the united state. In this type of fees, the payment of fee is CONDITIONAL to the results of lawsuit. So if the lawsuit fails, no fee would be paid to the lawyer and if the lawsuit is successful, more than usual amount or a pecent of condemned amount will be paid. Despite accepting theses agreement in some legal systems, there are some limitations in order to make conformity with their own legal system which make different, the importance and functions of it in compare with the U. S. In some legal systems, other institutions with the same function are predicted too. In Iran legal system, despite of freedom of contract, according to article 80 of the law of attorney regulations, a type of contingency fees which is a part of a demand are prohibited. This paper with a comparative attitude and with insisting on U. S legal system and clarifiying the CONDITIONAL and contingency fees and its advantages and disadvantages, defend the accepting of it in Iran legal system.