A rule of interferance from

propositional logic. CP for short.

If you have an argument with the conclusion in the form of a implication (logical operator, not rule of implication), you can assume the antecedent, and using that try to deduce the consequent. For example:

N>O

N>P

Therefore N>(O*P)

Assume N. (this is called aceptance of conditional proof(ACP))

Use Modus Ponens to derive O and P from the first two statements. Conjoin them with conjunction. You now have showen that if you have N, you have O*P.

N>(O*P)

See also:: Everything Logic Symbols, Disjuctive Syllogism, Double Negation, Tautology, DeMorgan's Rule, Modus Ponens, Hypothetical Syllogism, Constructive Dilemma, Conjunction, Commutativity,

Here's the whole thing...

1. F>E

2. (F*E)>R // F>R

| 3. F ACP

| 4. E MP 1,3

| 5. F*E Conj 3,4

| 6. R MP 2,5

7. F>R CP 3-6.