  People have offered different reasons for rejecting the rule of weakening, depending on the interpretation of consequence and premise combination. One of the early motivating examples comes from a concern for relevance. If the logic is relevant (if to say that \(p\) entails \(q\) is true is to say, at least, that \(q\) truly depends on \(p)\) then the comma need not not satisfy weakening. We may indeed have \(A\) following from \(X\), without \(A\) following from \(X,Y\), for it need not be the case that \(A\) depends on \(X\) and \(Y\) together.