The second puzzle is about the 'law of excluded middle'. The law of excluded middle has a logical form, i.e. "either…or". Let's consider the third sentence "Either the present king of France is bald or the present king of France is not bald". Considering this sentence it is examined that there is no such man exists as the present king of France. So the king doesn't come under bald nor does it come under not-bald list. In addition to it, there is no such monarchy found in France. But in both the cases, it can't be false, otherwise it will violate the logical form of the law of excluded middle, as a result, it will violate the principle of "intelligibility".

Here, again, we can solve the puzzle by making the distinction between names and descriptions. 'The present king of France' is a description, not a name. Therefore, there is no logical demand that an object/individual must be there corresponding to 'the present king of France'; hence, there is no question of whether the individual is belonging to the class of 'bald' or 'not-bald'. The puzzle is created only when we mistake the description 'the present king of France' for a name.

The third puzzle is about the 'law of identity'. It can be explained better by the help of fourth example, i.e., "George the IV wished to know whether Mr. Scott is the author of Waverley". A name is a simple symbol whose meaning is something that can only occur in the subject of a sentence, and a 'simple' symbol is one, which has no parts. Thus 'Mr. Scott' is a simple symbol, although it has parts (consists of letters), these parts are not symbols. On the other hand, "the author of Waverley" is not a simple symbol because the separate words that compose the phrase are parts of it, which are symbols. If no-entity is found in the subject part, it can't refer to anything. In this context, a question arises, how to understand the ostensive reference of non-existent entity and how to interpret definite description used in an identity statement?