We here propose a solution to the problem we have raised. Basically, the mathematical notion of entailment seems to be connected to the inferential rules from Classical Logic, so that if we have P: x belongs to the reals, and Q: x+2=5 => x=3, P |= Q. Notwithstanding, we would also have that if P: x belongs to the interval (7,10), and Q: x+2=5 => x=3, P |= Q. The second instance of entailment does not seem to be justifiable if (...) our intuition is consulted: Even though we could say that absurdity implies anything in Classical Logic, entailment should be a concept that belongs to the metalogic, not to the logic of the system, so that we should not be inside of the Classical Logic World by the time we assess things in what regards entailment. As another point, our discussions in Entailment led us to choose the sense has as a consequence for entailment, so that it is not really acceptable that we have, as a consequence, using normal language, of x being inside of the real interval (7,10) that if x+2=5, then x=3. If x is in that interval, x+2 should not be 5, unless we are talking about moduli of vectors. However, when we transfer to Classical Logic, in having the antecedent false, and the consequent false as well, we have that the implication, which some call material, is true. We here discuss this sort of matter in detail, and hope to get to the bottom of the issue, and perhaps to a universal solution. (shrink)