NJ, For clarity I am separating sections of this response by "--". Capitals are for emphasis. (Not yelling) -- "The terms "complementary predicate" and "contrary predicate" are used by an author of a logic textbook" What author? What book? Are they defined as you have done here, by example? If not, how are they defined? I would find this interesting although it does NOT have any bearing on my position. -- "(11) Given that you appreciate a difference between acceptable, poor, and nonacceptable premises, you could elucidate, for me, any differences you find between my nonacceptable premises (my not acceptable premises), and my  poor premises." No NJ, I won't elucidate those differences. Although I can appreciate differences of the type you cite, they still include one of the poor premises I cited. I never used the words "acceptable", "nonacceptable", or "not acceptable" regarding your premises. You mapped these directly from your experience. Thank you for making my point! (Poor, non-poor, not poor, and either: acceptable, excellent, good, satisfactory, superior, or worthy would have been more appropriate don't you think!) -- You state: "Thank you for your partial feedback on my premises.  I will welcome your full analysis of the arguments whose premises you find poor." I DID say that your argument had poor premises. Here's one: 1. The claim that there are two types of predicates that "can be involved" in an either/or distintion may be true, although "can be involved" in is unclear. Nonetheless, I am going to pretend that I know what you mean by this (examples to follow.) However, it does not follow that these forms are applicable in the context of formal logic. Specifically, they do not exhuastively and exclusively partition the set to which they apply. Therefor applying the rules of formal logic to these is in error. This is a false premise upon which you build your argument. Either/or sentences CAN be formed using the pairs you identify. For example, "(All) earthlings are either caucasion or non-caucasion" This statement will or at least could be false for some member X of the set N to which the partition is applied. There are instances of the predicate types that you identify where an individual (specifically a human being) will identify themselves as belonging to both partitions. In addition, there are instances where individuals will identify themselves as belonging to neither. Therefor as a logical partition the predicates fail for exhaustivity and exclusivity. Therefor any applications of formal logic are inappropriate for these partitions. No need to continue (I hope) Does this make sense to you? Do you see how some of your conclusions are in error as a result? -- I wrote: (2) "Do you think the pair (for example) healthy/nonhealt[h]y and the pair healthy/not healthy are identical? By identical, I mean the same in the experience of the listener to these utterances." You wrote: "And my answers are (3) through (5). (3) It would depend on the listener." I agree. This why I asked you about any contexts other than college classes where this would be of use. Since the words will (using the following label for convenience) ACTIVATE different sets of FA experiences for different individuals then any logically formal generalizations about the patterns involving these classes which depend on exclusivity and exhaustivity will be false. Statement (4) "The pairs unhealthy/healthy, not healthy/healthy, and nonhealthy/healthy, are pairs for which any combination of two is nonidentical, by American English convention." could have two possible meanings for me. I won't elaborate on them. Instead I restate my position by analogy: unhealthy is to healthy as not healthy is to healthy is NOT an accurate mapping at the level of experience. This also applies to nonhealthy:healthy::not healthy:healthy and finally, unhealthy:healthy::not healthy:healthy -- You state: "(7) To be not healthy is definitely to be nonhealthy, and maybe to be unhealthy.  To say that someone is unhealthy is to say that he is ill." I flatly disagree at the level of experience. I refer to linguistically mediated experience at the level of FA. Put differently, when someone accesses the state "X is not healthy" they do not access the same state that of "X is nonhealthy" When someone accesses the state "X is unhealthy" they will not access the same state as "X is ill" In my previous post I asked you to test your experience and that of others about this. Have you? -- You state: "8) The meaning of the words "unhealthy" and "healthy" are not disputed" Yes they are. I am disputing them! If you are not sure on this one, put six people in a room give them each a peice of paper and ask them to write down what healthy means. It will be a miracle if you get two of the same answers in a group of six. Especially if you eliminate self-referential definitions. That does not fall into the "not disputed" category. Please don't point me to the dictionary. People are not dictionaries and do not carry dictionary definitions of words in their neurologies (at least not usually) -- You state: "Be advised that you need a good understanding of informal logic to perform action (11).  You might need to take a college class before you perform action (11). Maybe all you need is a library! Look on the shelves for a logic textbook that has answers in the back." No I don't. No I don't, No I don't. No, I definitely won't. Good luck! Todd