In the previous presentation, we discussed the three puzzles (the problem of ostensive reference, the problem of the law of excluded middle, and the problem of identity) identified by Russell in relation to the 'definite description'. In continuation to that in this presentation we shall what Russell proposed further regarding 'definite description'. He argued that the violation of the law of excluded middle arises because of the logical fallacy that embedded in the proposition. To overcome the fallacy and prevent the violation he analyzed the following propositions. The purpose is to characterize the nature and defects of definite descriptions, and arrive at the conclusion, i.e., how to get their references. As a result, even though sentences do not refer to anything of the worldly affairs, yet they will be considered as meaningful. The propositions are:

1. The present king of France is bald.
2. The golden mountain does not exist.
3. The author of Waverley exists.
4. Scott is the author of Waverley.

These propositions are formulated in subject-predicate form, where the subject part is its 'definite description'. The fourth proposition refers to the 'identity' of the definite description. Russell used a technique for analyzing these propositions termed as "translation". It suggests that we should rewrite the propositions in such a manner that they should reveal their true character. He used 'logical apparatus' for showing that how these propositions won't be treated as names if we rewrite them. After the reformulation of these expressions the definite descriptions will no longer be considered as definite descriptions, because they may not be found as names. Russell rewrites all these propositions to show the referent (existence) of the subject part in them. Now we will do the analysis of these propositions for bringing out their logical character.