I had a technical question about conditionals. To use an example, consider the following conditional statement,
(1) If X is a man, then X is a father
I consider (1) to be false because I consider the following universal statement to be false,
(2) All men are fathers
My question then is,
a) what is the technical relationship between (1) and (2)? I don't think (2) is derived from (1) however I intuitively feel like the truth of (1) necessitates the truth of (2).
b) Does someone who asserts the truth of (1) also implicitly assert the truth of (2)?
c) Is it possible for someone to claim (1) is true while acknowledging (2) is false? (for example, by using the following reasoning, X is a unique and special man for whom manhood entails fatherhood. Wouldn't such a justification be a special pleading fallacy? The person also claims that since (1) does not specifically mention "all men", therefore (2) is not relevant to the truth of (1))
d) If indeed the above justification is special pleading, what is the best way to demonstrate that (1) is a false conditional statement to that person (who denies (1) implies the truth of (2) )