Final answer:
The statement that a conditional with a contingency for its consequent is sometimes a contradiction is false. In logic, a contradiction is always false, and a conditional statement does not inherently fulfill this definition.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question posed pertains to the logical structure of conditional statements and the potential for contradiction when a contingent is placed on the consequent. In formal logic, a conditional is typically expressed in an if-then format. For example, 'If A, then B'. The 'if' part is known as the antecedent, and the 'then' part is the consequent. A conditional says, in essence, that the truth of B (the consequent) is dependent upon the truth of A (the antecedent).
Now, regarding the statement that a conditional with a contingency for its consequent is sometimes a contradiction, this is false. A contradiction in logic is a statement that is always false, such as a statement and its negation being true at the same time. However, a conditional with a contingency for its consequent does not fulfill this definition. Conditional statements express a logical relationship, where the consequent is a necessary condition for the antecedent. It does not inherently lead to a contradiction unless the contingency put upon the consequent directly contradicts the antecedent.