socrates was a man
if socrates was a man than he is mortal
thus socrates is mortal

that being said and useing the same logic make the next satement true(logicaly of course)

1. P
2. if P than Q
3. thus Q

So p is like Q just in desuise!!!!
...ya i know, im an idiot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so me and Bruce debated this for a while and we both agree that this statement is false, however for different reasons. Of course I had to make mine extremely over complicated and he had to make his very simplistic.

Kory---I think the main problem with the statement is that it lacks a subject. In the statement about Socrates, there are three subjects(Socrates, man, and mortal). the statement about the letters has only two subjects(Q and P) but since Q and P are OF the same subject(that being alphabet) the statement cannot be true. i think the statement has to have three different subjects OF three different subjects that directly have something in common with the adjacent subject, so long as you look at the subjects labeled as subject 1,2,and 3. so 1 being connected to 2, and 2 to 3. but not 1 to 3.
So to summarize that in my theory:
1.There has to be three subjects.
2.They have to be adjacently connected, but can not be non-adjacently connected.
3.The statement must consist of three sentences.
4.The first sentence must say "(1) (is/was) (form of be) (2)".
5.The second sentence must say "(If) (1) (was/is/will be) (form of be) (2) (than) (1) (is/was/will be) (form of be) (3)".
6.The third sentence must say "(Thus/Than) (1) (is/was/will be) (3)".

Bruce---It is just an "if" "than" statement.
If a is equal to b, than a=b