Understanding predicate logic given symbolic notation? 
I'm having trouble understanding predicate logic. Question J is that saying "All broken windows are in the garage"?
Is K. saying "for every x in the garage the x has a broken window"
L.) "there exists a car and it is in the garage"?
M.) "There exists a car and there exists broken windows?"
The statements are not making sense when being said any guidance?
 A: Try writing them first as a direct translation of the predicate logic, then start rearranging them into some proper English. For example, let's start with J.
$\forall x (R(x) \rightarrow Q(x))$
So in "predicate English", this is "For all x, (x has a broken window) implies (x is in the garage)".
As a first step, let's change "x" into something more normal, and replace "A implies B" with "If A, then B". "For every object, if it has a broken window, it is in the garage."
Then, the idea of "For every thing, if A then B" really just means "Everything that is A is also B". So, something like this: "Everything with a broken window is in the garage."
The rest you should have another go at yourself, but I'll give you a quick piece of advice - R(x) is the statement "x has a broken window", not "x is a broken window". Funnily enough, at this stage of things I don't think you have the notation to actually relate the two contexts, so none of your sentences should use a phrase like "is a broken window" or "there are broken windows". Always refer to things "having/with a broken window".
