I'm glad I was downvoted. I won't ever be coming back to this sub. Downvotes are not for disagreeing. For example, I upvoted you. Anyways, my reply to you, before I unsub:
Ok sure, I agree that in this case there probably isn't a middle between married and unmarried. Maybe engaged, or divorced. My general point still stands, it's a point from mathematical logic. The confusion between you and me is my evidence of this point. The fundamental ambiguity in English sentences.
In mathematical logic, there is not one logical system. There are many. Some have truth values "true", "false", others "true, false, maybe", and others are even continuous (0.0 - 1.0, eg. 0.377), and others have fewer rules.
The rules I mentioned, they are completely arbitrary, like any logical system. A logical system can be described by its axioms, or fundamental assumptions.
The clarification you made is also completely arbitrary. The example is definitely contrived, so bear with me. What if somebody is married to a dead person? What if somebody is married to themselves? What if somebody is married in a country where know one knows what the word "married" means and they speak a different language?
The middle I'm not excluding isn't a coloquialism, it refers to a logical axiom that you simply don't have to make in certain logics. Quantum logic actually doesn't even have the distributive law, which would mean in that system "I am a man and I like to eat or like to drink through the day" DOES NOT MEAN "I am a man and I like to eat OR I am a man and I like to drink". This is because quantum particles don't behave with regards to the physics of regular logic.
I'll state the thesis of this post without avoiding jargon, unfortunately. There are many different logical systems that one may subscribe to that may work in different circumstances. Questions that are as vague as these require empirical reasoning, ie. How often is married and unmarried used in complete opposition to each other? This actually doesn't even resolve this issue, since on most government forms you'd have five different martial statuses, at least in Canada. Does divorced mean unmarried? I could easily argue that it doesn't. You could argue that it does. In the normal ZFC logical system, sure, you would probably assume that. But it is an assumption. Therefore, *any logic problem expressed purely in English without specifying the logical system" is too vague to have an exact answer.
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=ambiguousness%20of%20logical%20form is a very good search on this topic.
Assuming a logical system in this case doesn't make you smart.
I'll admit, if they gave me ZFC as the system, I'd still get the question wrong. So maybe it's only a minor point. I'd still say that logic problems expressed in English do not reflect on any important form of general intelligence.