 In addition, a defeasible consequence relation ought to be supraclassical: if \(p\) follows from \(q\) in classical logic, then it ought to be included in the defeasible consequences of \(q\) as well. A formula \(q\) ought to count as an (at least) defeasible consequence of itself, and anything included in the content of \(q\) (any formula \(p\) that follows from \(q\) in classical logic) ought to count as a defeasible consequence of \(q\) as well. Moreover, the defeasible consequences of a set \(\Gamma\) ought to depend only on the content of the formulas in \(\Gamma\), not in how that content is represented. Consequently, the defeasible consequence relation ought to treat \(\Gamma\) and the classical logical closure of \(\Gamma\) (which we’ll represent as “\(Cn(\Gamma)\)”) in exactly the same way. A consequence relation that satisfies these two conditions is said to satisfy full absorption (see Makinson 1994, 47).