Exercise 2.4 - Answers

1	(i)	Yes.
	(ii)	The first sentence is ambiguous. But, if it means that they are friends with each other, then, the first sentences will be false, but the second true, if each is one of the speaker's friends, but they aren't friends with each other.
	(iii)	Yes
	(iv)	No. Suppose that John lives next door and that Mary went to visit someone in the next street. Then the second sentence would be true, but not the first.
	(v)	Debatable. If Mary and John had three children and then got married, the second sentence would be true. Would the first be false? There is certainly some sort of implication that they were married first and then had three children. But, arguably, this is a matter of implicature rather than logical implication. So the first sentence would be true (but to assert it might be misleading).
	(vi)	Yes.
	(vii)	No. The problem is that whether something counts as small or not depends on what it is being compared with. In the first sentence it is evident that Dumbo is being compared with elephants. So that sentence will be true if he is small for an elephant. In the second sentence he may be being compared with animals in general. In that case the second sentence is presumably false.
	(viii)	Yes. It is true that the first sentence implies that there is some sort of contrast between being an elephant and being quite intelligent. But this is a matter of implicature, rather than of logical implication.
	(ix)	No. To say that Dumbo is a skilful flier is to say that he is skilful at flying. To say that Dumbo is skilful (simply) may be to say that he is skilful at a wide range of things, or that he is skilful at some specific thing, which may not be flying. So, the first sentence would be true and the second false, if he were skilful at flying, but not at a wide range of things (or not at the specific thing in question). Equally the second sentence would be true but the first false if, say, he were skilful at a wide range of things which did not include flying.

Close Window