The phrase "are necessary premises" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in discussions about logic, arguments, or reasoning where premises are required for a conclusion to be valid.
Example: "In order to support the argument, it is essential to establish what the necessary premises are."
Alternatives: "are essential premises" or "are required premises".
It is then claimed that its premises are necessary, and thus, by the principle that entailment transmits necessity from premises to conclusion, that its conclusion is necessary too.
It should not, I think, be impossible for the landlord and a prospective tenant to agree that for a reduced amount of rent, the tenant, rather than the landlord, will make such agreed upon improvements as are necessary to make the premises fit for human habitation.
Whereas science relies upon premises which are necessary and known to be so, a dialectical discussion can proceed by relying on endoxa, and so can claim only to be as secure as the endoxa upon which it relies.
Still, science needs more: a science proceeds by organizing the data in its domain into a series of arguments which, beyond being deductions, feature premises which are necessary and, as Aristotle says, "better known by nature", or "more intelligible by nature" (gnôrimôteron phusei) (APo. 71b33 72a25; Top. 141b3 14; Phys. 184a16 23).
The premises and the conclusion in uniform necessity syllogisms are necessary per se.
An affirmative judgment regarding each of the following considerations or "premises" is necessary for the decision/conclusion to get on board: whether the train is safe enough, whether it's quick enough, and whether it's scenic enough (e.g. whether it's okay that they'll miss out on a view of the lake).
Increased knowledge and understanding about sexual issues is necessary to develop better premises for communication and interaction.
She added that "it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties".
She wrote that "it may be necessary to reconsider the premise" of Smith and related cases: This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.
