 So the conversational implicature view about the relationship between thick terms and evaluation cannot explain either set of the linguistic data in  section 4.1.  The other two do better. Both presuppositions and conventional implicatures project in ways suggested by  (4a–d).  These views also predict that  (1)  should sound odd: “I regret being a member of the communist party and I never was a member” sounds close to contradictory, and so does “Shaq is tall but agile and his being agile isn’t unexpected given his tallness”. Pragmatic presuppositions in particular also promise to be defeasible in the ways the evaluations normally conveyed by T-utterances may be taken to be on the back of examples like  (5)–(7).  But there might be suitably weak notions of semantic presupposition that also can claim this advantage. 