Lasersohn (2005) has argued that the use of Russell’s analysis of the definite determiner in Montague Grammar, which is responsible for giving the correct prediction in the case of the temperature paradox, is also responsible for giving the wrong prediction in the case of the Gupta syllogism. In this article, I argue against this claim and show that the problem with the Gupta syllogism can be solved by making a minor addition to Montague Grammar. This solution is one that Lasersohn discusses but rejects. I show that his critique of it is ill- founded.