Quantifiers- universal and existential

Question

Let P(x) denote the statement “x is an accountant let Q(x) denote the statement “x owns a Porsche

Someone who owns a Porsche is an accountant

why is the answer ∃x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) and not ∃x (Q(x) -> P(X))?

Answer 1

From the truth table for the implication $Q(x) \implies P(x)$, you will see that this implication is true if $Q(x)$ and $P(x)$ are both false. So, the statement $\exists x (Q(x) \implies P(x))$ would be true if someone exists who neither owns a Porsche nor is an accountant... which certainly does not capture the meaning of the statement "Someone who owns a Porsche is an accountant".

Perhaps if you reworded the sentence a bit, it would be clearer: "Someone who owns a Porsche also is an accountant". The word "also" clearly indicates the logical connective "and".