[Oblivious]

This is a challenge, proposed in good fun and purposed for YOUR good fun:
Read the clean text and my solution (which you may/might disagree with) here:
http://realgar.hopto.org/OtherStuff/PvE.html

This is an excerpt from "Roots of Wisdom" by Helen Buss Mitchell

Sophists were accused of making the weaker argument appear the stronger and, generally, of distorting the truth. Here is a Sophist story. Read it and decide for yourself whether the charges are justified.

Protagoras took Euathlus as a student in rhetoric (law school, people). Since Euathlus had no money, teacher and student agreed that when Euathlus won his first court case he would pay Protagoras for his education. Time went by, and Euathlus did not appear in court. Protagoras grew impatient and brought a suit against Euathlus for payment. Protagoras reasoned that whichever way the court decided he would win: If the court decided in his favor, Euathlus would have to pay, and if Euathlus won his first court case he would have fulfilled the original condition and be obliged to pay his teacher. Confident of the outcome, he arrived in court.

Meanwhile, Euathlus had learned his lessons well. He reasoned this way: If the court decides I must pay Protagoras, I will still not have won my first case and not be obliged to pay, but if I win then the court will have decided I do not have to pay Protagoras.

Should Euathlus have to pay Protagoras?

-----------------------------------

So what do you think?