It is argued in this paper that 4-year-old children do not perform logical operations corresponding to formal logic upon the sentential components of implicative verbs to produce the indirect implications, as was suggested by Macnamara, Baker & Olson (1976). First, it is shown that the indirect implications tested by Macnamara et al. are not the implications which would be derived on the basis of formal reasoning. Second, additional empirical evidence is presented to show that when children hear a story containing a sentence with an implicative verb they do not combine the sentential components of that implicative verb (i.e. the presuppositions and implicative) to arrive at the implication of their conjunction. It is argued that the children draw upon their past personal knowledge concerning the event described in the story and import additional premises where necessary in order to derive the indirect implications.