The statement,” Every comedian is funny” where C(x) is “x is a comedian” and F (x) is “x is funny” and the domain consists of all people.ans.∃x(C(x) ∧ F (x))∀x(C(x) → F (x))∃x(C(x) → F (x))∀x(C(x) ∧ F (x))

The statement "Every comedian is funny" can be translated into predicate logic as follows:

∀x(C(x) → F (x))

This statement is read as "For all x, if x is a comedian then x is funny". This is the correct translation of the statement because it captures the idea that every person who is a comedian is also funny.

The other options are not correct translations of the statement:

∃x(C(x) ∧ F (x)) is read as "There exists an x such that x is a comedian and x is funny". This statement only asserts that there is at least one person who is both a comedian and funny, not that every comedian is funny.

∃x(C(x) → F (x)) is read as "There exists an x such that if x is a comedian then x is funny". This statement only asserts that there is at least one person who, if they are a comedian, is also funny. It does not assert that every comedian is funny.

∀x(C(x) ∧ F (x)) is read as "For all x, x is a comedian and x is funny". This statement asserts that every person is both a comedian and funny, which is not what the original statement says.