1.      Analyse this argument and explain why it is not valid:

The temperature in Amsterdam is rising.

The temperature in Amsterdam = The temperature in Prague.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The temperature in Prague is rising.


Hint: The terms ‘temperature in Amsterdam’ and ‘the temperature in Prague’ denote magnitudes of
type t[t][w]. We construct them like this:
lwlt [^0Temperature_in[wt] ^0Amsterdam], lwlt [^0Temperature_in[wt] ^0Prague],
where Temperature_in/(ti)[t][w].



2.      Prove the validity of this argument:
The Mayor of Ostrava visited Brno.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The Mayor of Ostrava exists.

In which supposition does the meaning of ‘the Mayor of Ostrava’ occur in the premise and in which
supposition in the conclusion?

3.      Analyse:

For all numbers x holds that dividing x by 0 is improper.
Hint: Apply Improper/(o*[1]): the set of constructions v-improper for every valuation v.


4.      Determine, to which construction is a given construction v(p/x)-congruent, i.e., it
v-constructs the same object for the valuation that associates x with the number p:

[^0Sub [^0Tr x] ^0y ^0[^0Sin y]] ^


^2[^0Sub [^0Tr x] ^0y ^0[^0Sin y]]



5.      What does the construction [^0Sub [^0Tr x] ^0y ^0[^0Wife_of[wt] y]] v(John/x)-construct?