In this paper, we provide a theoretical framework to analyze an agent who misinterprets or misperceives the true decision problem she faces. We show that a wide range of behavior observed in experimental settings manifest as failures to perceive implications, in other words, to properly account for the logical relationships between various payoff relevant contingencies. We present a behavioral definition of perceived implication, thereby providing an elicitation technique, and show that an agent's account of implication identifies a subjective state-space that underlies her behavior. By analyzing this state-space, we characterize distinct benchmarks of logical sophistication that drive empirical phenomena. We disentangle static and dynamic rationality. Thus, our framework delivers both a methodology for assessing an agent's level of contingent thinking and a strategy for identifying her beliefs in the absence full rationality.