Converse Truth Table I do not understand how the converse ($B \Rightarrow A$) truth table is logical.
For instance, take the statement, "If I am in Paris, then I am in France".
If I am in Paris, then I am in France. Therefore, $A \Rightarrow B$, since if I am in Paris, then I must also be in France. However, ($B \not \Rightarrow A$), since it can be true that I am in France, but that does not necessarily mean I am in Paris specifically. 
I would greatly appreciate it if someone could tell me why my understanding is incorrect.
Thank you.
 A: Let's agree that 'if you are in Paris, then you are in France' ($A \implies B$). (We could get picky, and say maybe you're in Paris, Texas; but let's not!).
But then the converse ($B \implies A$) is not automatically true: for example, we can't then deduce from 'if you are in Paris, then you are in France' that 'if you are in France, then you are in Paris'. In that sense you're right that 'it's not logical' to say the converse is always true. 
Now, bear in mind that the converse might be true, or it might not. It must be proven either way based on other information. And it turns out that we know enough other things, about European geography in this case, that we can also prove that the converse is not true.
On the other hand, what we can always deduce is called the contrapositive: once we accept the truth of 'if you are in Paris, then you are in France', then we always automatically can say 'if you are not in France, then you are not in Paris' ($\neg B \implies \neg A$). That will always be true (at least, in the world of mathematical language).
A: 
Let's assume you have a number,for example 5. When you are asked 5 is in which circle you will say it is in B. Then by this statement one can say your number is also in A.
But lets assume you have number 3. And you are asked in which circle number is? You day it is in circle A. So one can't say the number is in B!
This case is same , assume circle B as Paris and fields A as France and see your statement.
