I found this question in an old exam paper. I have no idea what is expected from a question like this.
Consider the Tarski's world below. This world illustrates that
¬∃xTet(x) is NOT a logical consequence of the premises below. Explain why/
1. ∀x∀y [LeftOf(x, y] → Larger(x, y)] 2. ∀x∀y [Smaller(y, x) → (Cube(x) ∧ Dodec(y))]
This is worth 6 marks.
I think the obvious things are that you cannot infer
¬∃xTet(x) from the premisses.
Maybe I just don't really understand the question