Can the material implication ever be used as the main connective within the scope of an existential quantifier? Can the material implication ever be used as the main connective within the scope of an existential quantifier? Usually, a conjunction is the main connective in sentences bound by an existential quantifier. My text says this is > Because ‘(∃x)’ says something extremely minimal: ‘There is something'. So we **_usually_** need to build up the features of that something to say something interesting 'Usually' is not 'always'. The wording doesn't preclude the main connective being something other than the conjunction. For example, if I wanted to notate: * There are apples or there are oranges. ∃x(Ax ∨ Ox) * There is something such that, if it is a nuke, it is also a WMD. ∃x(Nx → Wx) So is it not necessarily the case that the main connective of a sentence bound with an existential quanitifer be a conjunction?

There is an answer to this question, such that if the question is asking for a specific example, then the answer is providing it.