 Logics that regard (EFQ) as invalid are called paraconsistent. Broadly speaking, there are two camps of logicians advocating for paraconsistent systems, either as candidates for the One True Logic or as instances of pluralism. One camp consists of logicians who insist that in a valid argument, the premises must be relevant to the conclusion. Typically, relevance logicians also demur from certain classical logical truths called paradoxes of material implication, such as \((\Phi \rightarrow (\Psi \rightarrow \Phi))\) and \((\Phi \rightarrow (\Psi \rightarrow \Psi))\). 