 The best-known objection to the truth-functional account, one of the “paradoxes of material implication”, is that according to Hook, the falsity of \(A\) is sufficient for the truth of “If \(A, B\)”. Look at the last two lines of column (i). In every possible situation in which \(A\) is false, “\(A \supset B\)” is true. Can it be right that the falsity of “She touched the wire” entails the truth of “If she touched the wire she got a shock”? 