Q&A: Hard logical question.?

Question by DreamingLover: Hard logical question.?
The Protagoras problem

Euathlos has learned from Protagoras how to be a lawyer, under a very generous arrangement whereby he doesn’t need to pay anything for his tuition until and unless he wins his first court case. Rather to Protagoras annoyance, however, after giving up hours of his time training Euathlos, the pupil decides to become a musician and never takes any court cases. Protagoras demands that Euathlos pay him for his trouble and, when the musician refuses, decides to sue him in court. Protagoras reasons that if Euathlos loses the case, he, Protagoras, will have won, in which case he will get his money back, and furthermore, that even if he loses, Euathlos will then have won a case, despite his protestations about being a musician now, and will therefore still have to pay up.

Euathlos reasons a little differently however. If I lose, he thinks, then I will have lost my first court case, in which event, the original agreement releases me from having to pay any tuition fees. And, even if he wins, Protagoras will still have lost the right to enforce the contract, so he will not need to pay anything.

They cant both be right.So who’s making the mistake?
First, note that it is inherently illogical to say that both are right.

Second, Protagoras’ contract specify winning a case and not winning as a lawyer.

Best answer:

Answer by andromedasview@sbcglobal.net
Yes, they can both be true. Both the “reasoning” lines you show are essentially looking at the question from the same perspective, just re-written to make them look like opposing arguments.

What do you think? Answer below!