What is the purpose of implication in this scenario? Consider the case:
Let:


*

*S(x) = “x is a student” 

*F(x) = “x is a faculty member” 

*A(x, y) = “x has asked y a question” 

*Dx and Dy = Consists of all people associated with your school. 


Use quantifiers to express this statement:

Some student has never been asked a question by a faculty member.

Attempted Solution:
Exist x, All y ( S(x) AND F(y) AND (NOT A(y, x)) )  
Book Solution:
Exist x ( S(x) AND All y ( F(y) -> NOT A(y, x) ) )
What is the point of using implication here? Would my answer also be correct?

Your attempted solution is wrong on one point, and equivalent on the other.
The placement of the "All y" part is arbitrary between the two options - as $S(x)$ does not depend on $y$, it can be placed on either side of it (for lack of a better explanation).
For the implication, your implication is inaccurate - it implies that $F(y)$ for all $y$, as it can only be true if ALL of the conditions are true, since you used "and" for all of them.
On the other hand, here's how you'd write the book's answer without explicitly using implication:
$$\exists x \text{ s.t. } (S(x) \land \forall y, (\lnot F(y) \lor \lnot A(y,x)))$$
The english version of this is "There is a person who is a student and who, if you look at all other people, they are either not faculty or have not asked the student a question".
