Introduction The previous relevant studies have examined people’s conceptual comprehension rather than logical comprehension of semantic relations of sufficient conditionals (if p then q). The present experiment with college students was conducted to examine the influence of the representation of semantic relations of sufficient conditionals, and to compare conceptual comprehension with logical comprehension of semantic relations of sufficient conditionals. The experiment also examined the influence of the type of sufficient conditionals (contingence、obligation、permission、definition and causality conditionals ) on comprehension of semantic relations. Method 170 participants of college students were randomly assigned to five groups. Each groups completed both logical comprehension task and conceptual comprehension task of a type of conditionals. There were two independence variables. One was the question representation (logical vs. conceptual representation) of semantic relations of conditionals. In the logical comprehension task, the logical question representations of the four semantic relations of conditionals were respectively: “whether if p then q is true or false?” for the sufficiency of p for q, “if not p then not q is true or false” for the necessity of p for q, “if q then p is true or false” for the sufficiency of q for p, “if not q then not p is true or false” for the necessity of q for p. In the conceptual comprehension task, the conceptual question representations of the four semantic relations of conditionals were respectively: “can p ensure q?” for the sufficiency of p for q, “is p necessary for q?” for the necessity of p for q, “can q ensure p?” for the sufficiency of q for p, “is q necessary for p?” for the necessity of q for p. The other independence variable was the type of sufficient conditionals. There were the five types of conditionals: contingence, obligation, permission, definition and causality conditionals. Results The results showed that the question representation of semantic relations had the different influences on the two comprehensions of whether semantic relations between antecedents and consequents were sufficient, and whether semantic relations between antecedents and consequents were necessary. For the questions that whether semantic relations between antecedents and consequents were sufficient, there were significant positive correlations between the logical comprehensions and the conceptual comprehensions. The conceptual comprehensions were consistent with the logical comprehensions. For the questions that whether semantic relations between antecedents and consequents were necessary, there were no significant positive correlations between the logical comprehensions and the conceptual comprehensions. The conceptual comprehensions were dissociated with the logical comprehensions. For the questions that whether the antecedents were necessary for the consequents, there were more positive responses in the conceptual comprehensions than those in logical comprehensions. Moreover, the results showed that there were differences in the question comprehensions of whether the consequents were necessary for the antecedents in the five different conditionals. There were more positive responses in the question comprehensions of permission and definition conditionals than those in the question comprehensions of contingence, obligation and causality conditionals. Conclusion In summary, the present study shows that for the questions that whether semantic relations between antecedents and consequents were sufficient, the conceptual comprehensions were consistent with the logical comprehensions. For the questions that whether semantic relations between antecedents and consequents were necessary, there were no significant positive correlations between the logical comprehensions and the conceptual comprehensions. For the question comprehensions of whether the consequents were necessary for the antecedents in the five different conditionals. There were more positive responses in the question comprehensions of permission and definition conditionals than those in the question comprehensions of contingence, obligation and causality conditionals.