Is this a valid interpretation that shows this sentence, (∀x)(Mx ⊃ Kx) ⊃ (∃x)(Mx & Kx), is not quantificationally true? Here's the interpretation I thought up. UD: Set of all positive integers Mx: x is less than 1 Kx: x is greater than 0 (edited) So the antecedent is vacuously true, because Mx is always false and Kx always true for any x, so (∀x)(Mx ⊃ Kx) is always true. But since Mx is false, the consequent, (∃x)(Mx & Kx), cannot be true. So the whole statement is false, and the sentence is not quantificationally true.

Here, you have that both the quantified antecedent (call it $p$) is false, and the quantified consequent (call it $q$) is false. So the entire statement can easily be represented by the implication: $p\to q$.

Now what do you know about any statement of the form $p\to q$, when $p$, and $q,$ are false?

Put another way, an implication is False ONLY when the antecedent is true, and the consequent is true.

So, $F\to T, T\to T, F\to F$ are all true.

Just as a reminder of the definition of material implication see the truth-table below:

![enter image description here](

* * *

Now, given your subsequent edit, When $M(x)$ is false, but $K(x)$ is true,you are correct that you have an antecedent that is clearly is true, while the consequent is false, hence the entire statement is false!