 In systems of strict implication the so-called paradoxes of material implication (such as A → (B → A)) are avoided, but the so-called paradoxes of strict implication (such as (A &amp; ¬A) → B) remain. What would happen to Mally’s system if both kinds of paradoxes were avoided? This question can be answered by adding Mally’s axioms to a system in which none of the so-called “fallacies of relevance” can be derived (see the entry on  relevance logic).