I had a technical question about conditionals. To use an example, consider the following conditional statement,

**(1) If X is a man, then X is a father**

I consider (1) to be false because I consider the following universal statement to be false,

**(2) All men are fathers**

My question then is,

**a)** what is the technical relationship between (1) and (2)? I don't think (2) is derived from (1) however I intuitively feel like the truth of (1) necessitates the truth of (2).

**b)** Does someone who asserts the truth of (1) also implicitly assert the truth of (2)?

**c)** Is it possible for someone to claim (1) is true while acknowledging (2) is false? (for example, by using the following reasoning, X is a unique and special man for whom manhood entails fatherhood. Wouldn't such a justification be a special pleading fallacy? The person also claims that since (1) does not specifically mention "all men", therefore (2) is not relevant to the truth of (1))

**d)** If indeed the above justification is special pleading, what is the best way to demonstrate that (1) is a false conditional statement to that person (who denies (1) implies the truth of (2) )

Thank you