Small penises monitor.
Frank Limoncelli monitors.
Therefore, Frank Limoncelli’s has a small penis.
What’s the flaw in logic?
If a then b.
B does not necessitate a. Rather a necessitates b.
B is true, but does not follow from a.
So let’s try again.
————-
Frank Limoncelli has a small penis.
If you have a small penis, then you monitor.
Therefore, Frank Limoncelli monitors.
Perfect syllogism. Should be in logic textbooks.
But Frank Limoncelli is a Lieutenant.
Lieutenants are cool.
If you have a small penis, then you are not cool.
Frank Limoncelli is not cool.
Therefore, Frank Limoncelli is not a Lieutenant, since he’s not cool, as he has a small penis.
This is slightly flawed since it involves inductive reasoning.
Let’s make it more airtight.
If and only if you have a small penis, then you monitor.
Here, a necessitates b and b necessitates a. Therefore if Frank Limoncelli monitors, then he has a small penis.
He in fact monitors, therefore he undoubtedly has a small penis.