 Epistemically successful judgment-aggregation rules tend to rely on individual judgments where individuals are competent. How, in the example, should the group judge whether \(q\), i.e., when should the collective judgment set contain \(q\) and when \(\lnot q\)? The “conclusion-based procedure” adopts the majority judgment on whether \(q\). The “premise-based procedure” adopts the logical implication of the majority judgments on whether \(p\) and whether \(p\rightarrow  q\).[31]  Which of these two prominent procedures is more likely to find out the truth about \(q\) depends, roughly speaking, on whether individuals are primarily competent on \(q\) or primarily competent on \(p\) and \(p\rightarrow q\). The situation gets complicated if individuals have different areas of competence.