With their increase in performance, neural network architectures also become more complex, necessitating explainability. Therefore, many new and improved methods are currently emerging, which often generate so-called saliency maps in order to improve interpretability. Those methods are often evaluated by visual expectations, yet this typically leads towards a confirmation bias. Due to a lack of a general metric for explanation quality, non-accessible ground truth data about the model's reasoning and the large amount of involved assumptions, multiple works claim to find flaws in those methods. However, this often leads to unfair comparison metrics. Additionally, the complexity of most datasets (mostly images or text) is often so high, that approximating all possible explanations is not feasible. For those reasons, this paper introduces a test for saliency map evaluation: proposing controlled experiments based on all possible model reasonings over multiple simple logical datasets. Using the contained logical relationships, we aim to understand how different saliency methods treat information in different class discriminative scenarios (e.g. via complementary and redundant information). By introducing multiple new metrics, we analyse propositional logical patterns towards a non-informative attribution score baseline to find deviations of typical expectations. Our results show that saliency methods can encode classification relevant information into the ordering of saliency scores.