can in fact be intuitively grasped, unless the intuition is replaceable by an argument, the implicature (if present at all) will not count as a conversational implicature; it will be a conventional implicature." Generalised vs. particularised conversational implicature Grice also distinguishes between generalised and particularised conversational implicature. Grice says that particularised conversational implicatures (such as in the reference letter case quoted above) arise in "cases in which an implicature is carried by saying that p on a particular occasion in virtue of special features about the context, cases in which there is no room for the idea that an implicature of this sort is normally carried by saying that p." Generalized implicature, by contrast, arise in cases in which "one can say that the use of a certain form of words in an utterance would normally (in the absence of special circumstances) carry such-and-such an implicature or type of implicature." Grice does not offer a full theory of generalised conversational implicatures that distinguishes them from particularised conversational implicatures, on one hand, and from conventional implicatures, on the other hand, but later philosophers and linguists have attempted to expand on the idea of generalised conversational implicatures. Grice's paradox In his book Studies in the Way of Words (1989), he presents what he calls Grice's paradox. In it, he supposes that two chess players, Yog and Zog, play 100 games under the following conditions: (1) Yog is white nine of ten times. (2) There are no draws. And the results are: (1) Yog, when white, won 80 of 90 games. (2) Yog, when black, won zero of ten games. This implies that: (i) 8/9 times, if Yog was white, Yog won. (ii) 1/2 of the time, if Yog lost, Yog was black. (iii) 9/10 that either Yog wasn't white or he won. From these statements, it might appear one could make these deductions by contraposition and conditional disjunction: ([a] from [ii]) If Yog was white, then 1/2 of the time Yog won. ([b] from [iii]) 9/10 times, if Yog was white, then he won. But both (a) and (b) are untrue—they contradict (i). In fact, (ii) and (iii) don't provide enough information to use Bayesian reasoning to reach those conclusions. That might be clearer if (i)-(iii) had instead been stated like so: (i) When Yog was white, Yog won 8/9 times. (No information is given about when Yog was black.) (ii) When