[nineplay]

I don't think I've ever used the word 'implies' in that context, which may be the problem with the question. It still doesn't quite make sense in my thought process. Does a dog 'imply' a mammal? I wouldn't think so, a dog guarantees a mammal.

'Implies' to me suggests a possible underlying interpretation. If someone tells me he wants to eat, it implies that he is hungry. However he might not be hungry, he might be strict about eating at 8pm for other reasons. An 'implication' is perhaps the most likely association, but not necessarily the correct one.

[greggyb]

'Implies' is a term with a formal meaning in logic. You don't get to question a domain simply because one of its pieces of jargon has other interpretations in the vernacular.

[nineplay]

From the title

> What Everyone Knows

I don't believe everyone knows of the formal meaning in logic, even among candidates for a Master's program. He doesn't seem to want to consider that there's a flaw in his question, rather than a failure on our academic institutions.

[greggyb]

> and What No One Knows

The question certainly has some flaws in phrasing (discussed elsewhere in this thread). Its use of the word "implies" is not a flaw. If intro-level formal logic is a valid requirement, then there is no problem using "implies" in that context. If intro-level formal logic is not a valid requirement, then the whole question is bunk, but not the use of "implies".

[a1369209993]

It's perhaps plausible that someone might assume the colloquial definition, but if a candidate for a master's program doesn't know of the formal logic definition in the first place, that is a failure of our academic institutions.