邏輯結果（logical consequence）是邏輯學研究的核心問題。一般認為，邏輯結果是關於前提集和單個結論（single conclusion）之間的關係，而多前提與多結論的邏輯結果往往被認為是不符合直覺的。Restall（2005）從雙邊主義立場為多前提和多結論（multiple conclusions）的邏輯結果做出辯護。文中提出，邏輯結果是對「斷言」（assertion）和「否認」（denial）兩種言語行為（speech act）及其相關的認知狀態的約束（constraint），即：「A₁,...,Aₙ ⊢ B₁,...,Bₖ」，若且惟若，接受「A₁,...,Aₙ」但拒絕「B₁,...,Bₖ」是不融貫的（incoherence）。不同的邏輯是對「融貫性」不同標準的理解。本文將聚焦於這一論證以及它所面臨的從邏輯推論主義立場提出的挑戰（Steinberg 2011），並為多結論邏輯結果做出進一步地辯護。

Logical consequence is one of important topics discussed in research of logic. It is generally accepted that logical consequence is a binary relation between the set of premises and a single conclusion, while multiple-conclusion logical consequence is often considered to be unintuitive. Restall (2005) defended the multiple-conclusion logical consequence from a perspective of bilateralism. In that paper, logical consequence is understood as constraints on the two speech acts, “assertion” and “denial”, and on their related cognitive states, namely: A₁,...,Aₙ ⊢ B₁,...,Bₖ , if and only if, asserting “A₁,...,Aₙ” but denying “B₁,...,Bₖ” is incoherent. Different logics are different in virtue of the different criteria for “coherence.” To defend the arguments given in Restal l(2005), this paper will give replies to the criticisms from the view of inferentialism made in Steinberg (2011).