I also think the problem lies in the question. It assumes "married" and "unmarried" are mutual exclusive and span the entire space of possibilities. This does n

I also think the problem lies in the question. It assumes "married" and "unmarried" are mutual exclusive and span the entire space of possibilities. This does not appear to line up with reality in ways I find compelling. Nations may recognize people as married, but due to laws about common law marriage, differing requirements for marriage (very few people who consider themselves married in America filled out the proper paperwork for Tajikistan, a foolish and impossibly rare oversight, the test seems to assume), and many other X factors, it is completely reasonable to assume that people can be neither married nor unmarried, or that George is not married but both married and unmarried, or many other things. I think if we got code for this, if it used numbers of booleans, or really any system we are familiar with on computers, we wouldn't make this error -- not due to differences in how we think but differences in the object level discussion we would be having.