Does Tarski captures the Common Concept of Logical Consequence?

This article is concerned of the problem that weather Tarski’s definition of the ‘logical consequence’ in his seminal article ‘On the Concept of Logical Consequence’ (1936), as his article claims, captures the common concept of logical consequence or not. First of all, for understanding what defect had prevailing approach of logical consequence (proof- theoretical approach) that led him to attempt to present new definition of concept of logical consequence, I introduce proof-theoretical approach to logical consequence and examine its default and then explain two interpretations of his definition of the common concept of logical consequence. the First interpretation is that the common concept of logical consequence is the concept that all of ordinary and non-professional peoples in philosophy, logic and mathematics use. the Second interpretation is that what Tarski means by the common concept of logical consequence is the concept that for professional peoples in logic and mathematics is ‘common’ and already used in axiomatics. I defend the second interpretation and after descriptive-analytic examination of his suggested definition of this concept and presentation of example of it, I finally conclude that Tarski in his attempting for capture of the common concept of logical consequence has succeeded.