Considered is whether a statement must be literally false or if it is to be interpreted metaphorically. Conventionally, this proposition has been rejected in favor of the view that both semantically anomalous and self-evidently true statements can, under certain contexts, be metaphorically interpreted. The added meaning of the metaphorical interpretation has been explained as a consequence of a violation of Paul Grice's maxim that all statements must be informative. However, evidence is presented which suggests that in many cases a literally true metaphor presupposes one or more literally false implications. This is demonstrated through the use of metaphorical syllogisms as tests for what kinds of coherent conclusions may be drawn from various statements. It is concluded that interpretations of metaphors have more in common with other kinds of language use than has been supposed by other scholars, and that, therefore, a strictly taxonomic approach of the kind usually employed may be inappropriate. (D. Ryfe in LLBA 1999, vol. 33, n. 5)