\documentstyle[marc,12pt,24.151-ps]{article}
\setallmargins{1.5in}
\pagestyle{empty}
\def\part#1{\begin{center}#1\end{center}}
\begin{document}
\head{March 6, 1992}

\part{I}

\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] True.
\item[(2)] True.
\item[(3)] False.  Senses are not concrete objects, so the sese of
`the morning star' cannot be a planet, which is a concrete object.
\item[(4)] False.  The image associated with `the morning star' is
that of a point of light in the sky.
\item[(5)] True.
\item[(6)] False.  Senses express references. `\,{}`The
morning star'\,{}' is a sign, not a sense.
\item[(7)] False.  Again, a sense expresses a reference.  Senses do
not present references.
\end{enumerate}

\part{II}

No.  For example, `I said ``My friend visited me''\,{}', and `I said
``I was visited by my frienf''\,{}' have different truth values,
although the statements have the same sense.

\part{III}

% is this a trick question?
No, they are not the same.  `the morning star' and `the sense of `the
morning star',{}' are not the same.  Senses are not concrete objects.
(I get the feeling I'm really missing something here, or you did not
ask the question you meant to ask.)

\part{IV}

This sentence does not present a problem for Frege.  It is a simple
truth-value sentence, with two parts.  For the first part to be true,
the reference of `the morning star' must be a planet.  For the second
part to be true, John must be aware of this fact.

\end{document}
