 Thus the dynamic semantic treatment yields a truth conditional equivalence between   \[ (\exists x)(\Phi) \mathbin{\&amp;} \Psi  \]   and   \[ (\exists x)(\Phi \mathbin{\&amp;} \Psi)  \]   even when “\(\Psi\)” contains free occurrences of “x”. Hence it is often said that in DPL quantifiers semantically bind free variables outside their syntactic scope. This doesn’t encounter the same problems as the syntactic binding treatment rejected in  section 2,  since it allows quantifiers to provide values for subsequent anaphoric pronouns without actually binding them in a way that falsely predicts, e.g., that “Exactly one man loves Annie. He is rich” is truth-conditionally equivalent to \(\mbox{“}(\exists !x)(\mbox{man } x \mathbin{\&amp;} x \mbox{ loves Annie} \mathbin{\&amp;} x \mbox{ is rich})\mbox{”}\).