 Whereas it seems that all premises are acceptable, because the first premise is true and one grain does not make a difference to a collection of grains being a heap or not, the conclusion is, of course, unacceptable. If the predicate ‘is a heap’ denotes a fuzzy set and the conditional is interpreted as implication in Łukasiewicz’s continuum-valued logic, then the Sorites Paradox can be avoided. The truth-function \(f_{\rightarrow}\) of Łukasiewicz’s implication \(\rightarrow\) is defined by stipulating that if \(x \le y\), then \(f_{\rightarrow}(x, y) = 1\), and otherwise \(f_{\rightarrow}(x, y) = 1 - (x - y)\). If, say, the truth value of the sentence ‘A collection of 500 grains of sand is a heap’ is 0.8 and the truth value of ‘A collection of 499 grains of sand is a heap’ is 0.7, then the truth value of the implication ‘If a collection of 500 grains of sand is a heap, then a collection 499 grains of sand is a heap.’ is 0.9. Moreover, if the acceptability of a statement is defined as having a value greater than \(j\) for \(0 \lt j \lt 1\) and all the conditional premises of the Sorites Paradox do not fall below the value \(j\), then modus ponens does not preserve acceptability, because the conclusion of the Sorites Argument, being evaluated as 0, is unacceptable.