Para. 51-59

“It isn’t as though I was in love with Polly,” he said thickly. “Or going steady or anything like that.”

“That’s right,” I murmured.

“What's Polly to me, or me to Polly?”

“Not a thing,” said I.

“It’s just been a casual kick-just a few laughs, that's all.”

“Try on the coat,” said I.

He complied. The coat bunched high over his ears and dropped all the way down to his shoe tops. He looked like a mound of dead raccoons. “Fits fine,” he said happily.

I rose from my chair. “Is it a deal?” I asked, extending my hand.

He swallowed. “It’s a deal,” he said and shook my hand.

Q: What is this part about?

A: It is the bargain between the law student and his roommate over the exchange of the girl.

Para. 60

I had my first date with Polly the following evening. This was in the nature of a survey; I wanted to find out just how much work I had to do to get her mind up to the standard I required. I took her first to dinner. “Gee, that was a delish dinner,” she said as we left the restaurant. Then I took her to a movie. “Gee, that was a marvy movie,” she said as we left the theater. And then I took her home. “Gee, I had a sensaysh time,” she said as she bade me good night.

Q1: How does the language used by Polly strike you? Find some examples from the text and explain what effect her language creates.

A1: The writer deliberately makes Polly Espy use a lot of exclamatory words like “Gee, Oo, wow-dow” and clipped vulgar forms like “delish, marvy, sensaysh”, etc. to create the impression of a simple and rather stupid girl. This contrasts strongly with the language of the narrator, thus increasing the force of satire and irony.

Q2: How did the narrator’s first date with Polly Espy go?

A2：Polly’s language really upset the narrator and he had underestimated the size of his tasking of re-educating Polly.

Para. 61

I went back to my room with a heavy heart. I had gravely underestimated the size of my task. This girl’s lack of information was terrifying. Nor would it be enough merely to supply her with information first she had to be taught to think. This loomed as a project of no small dimensions, and at first I was tempted to give her back to Petey. But then I got to thinking about her abundant physical charms and about the way she entered a room and the way she handled a knife and fork, and I decided to make an effort.

Q: What is the level of speech in Paragraph 61? What purpose does it serve?

A: The language in this paragraph is more formal. The narrator felt depressed after the first date with Polly. To bring this feeling out, and to create a humorous effect, the writer uses formal phrases such as “with a heavy heart”, “gravely underestimated the size of the task”, “ lack of information”, “a project of no small dimensions”, etc.

Para. 62-74

I went about it, as in all things, systematically. I gave her a course in logic. It happened that I, as a law student, was taking a course in logic myself, so I had all the facts at my finger tips. “Polly,” I said to her when I picked her up on our next date, “tonight we are going over to the Knoll and talk.”

“Oo, terrif,” she replied. One thing I will say for this girl: you would go far to find another so agreeable.

We went to the Knoll, the campus trysting place, and we sat down under an old oak, and she looked at me expectantly. “What are we going to talk about?” she asked.

“Logic.”

She thought this over for a minute and decided she liked it. “Magnif,” she said.

“Logic,” I said, clearing my throat, “is the science of thinking. Before we can think correctly, we must first learn to recognize the common fallacies of logic. These we will take up tonight.”

“ Wow-dow!” she cried, clapping her hands delightedly.

I winced, but went bravely on. “First let us examine the fallacy called Dicto Slmpliciter.”

“By all means,” she urged, batting her lashes eagerly.

“Dicto Simpliciter means an argument based on an unqualified generalization. For example: Exercise is good. Therefore everybody should exercise.”

“I agree,” said Polly earnestly. “I mean exercise is wonderful. I mean it builds the body and everything.

“Polly,” I said gently, “the argument is a fallacy. Exercise is good is an unqualified generalization. For instance, if you have heart disease, exercise is bad, not good. Many people are ordered by their doctors not to exercise. You must qualify the generalization. You must say exercise is usually good, or exercise is good for most people. Otherwise you have committed a Dicto Simplioiter. Do you see?”

“No,” she confessed. “But this is marvy. Do more! Do more!”

Q1: Why did the narrator teach Polly Espy logic?

A1: The narrator wanted to supply her with information and first she had to be taught to think.

Q2: What was the first fallacy? And what did it mean?

A2: The first fallacy was Dicto Simpliciter. It meant an argument based on an unqualified generalization.

Q3: What did “batting her lashes eagerly” show?

A3: Polly was blinking or fluttering her eye-lashes rapidly to show pleasurable excitement.

Para. 75-79

“It will be better if you stop tugging at my sleeve,” I told her, and when she desisted, I continued: “Next we take up a fallacy called Hasty Generalization. Listen carefully: You can’t speak French. I can’t speak French. Petey Burch can’t speak French. I must therefore conclude that nobody at the University of Minnesota can speak French.”

“Really?” said Polly, amazed. “Nobody?”

I hid my exasperation. “Polly, it’s a fallacy. The generalization is reached too hastily. There are too few instances to support such a conclusion.”

“Know any more fallacies?” she asked breathlessly. “This is more fun than dancing even.”

I fought off a wave of despair. I was getting nowhere with this girl absolutely nowhere. Still, I am nothing if not persistent. I continued.

Q: What did the narrator mean “I fought off a wave of despair”?

A: He struggled to keep away the feeling of despair.

Para. 80-85

“Next comes Post Hoc. Listen to this: Let’s not take Bill on our picnic. Every time we take him out with us, it rains.”

“I know somebody like that,” she exclaimed. “A girl back home-Eula Becker, her name is, it never falls. Every single time we take her on a picnic- ”

“Polly,” I said sharply, “it’s a fallacy. Eula Becker doesn’t cause the rain. She has no connection with the rain. You are guilty of Post Hoc if you blame Eula Becker.”

“I’ll never do that again,” she promised contritely. “Are you mad at me?”

I sighed deeply. “No, Polly, I’m not mad.”

“Then tell me some more fallacies.”

Q1: Why did the narrator sigh?

A1: He really disappointed with Polly but he didn’t give up. So he had to tolerate Polly’s stupidity.

Q2: What is Post Hoc?

A2: It is a fallacy in logic of thinking that a happening which follows another must be its result.

Para. 86-96

“All right. Let’s try Contradictory Premises.”

“Yes, let’s,” she chirped, blinking her eyes happily.

I frowned, but plunged ahead. “Here’s an example of Contradictory Premises: If God can do anything, can He make a stone so heavy that He won’t be able to lift it?”

“Of course,” she replied promptly.

“But if He can do anything, He can lift the stone,” I pointed out.

“Yeah,” she said thoughtfully. “Well, then I guess He can’t make the stone.”

“But He can do anything,” I reminded her.

She scratched her pretty, empty head. “I’m all confused,” she admitted.

“Of course you are. Because when the premises of an argument contradict each other, there can be no argument. If there is an irresistible force, there can be no immovable object. If there is an immovable object, there can be no irresistible force. Get it?”

“Tell me some more of this keen stuff,” she said eagerly.

I consulted my watch. “I think we’d better call it a night. I’ll take you home now, and you go over all the things you’ve learned. We'll have another session tomorrow night.”

Q: Why did Polly say “Yes, let’s” repeating the narrator’s words?

A: Polly was trying to be as agreeable as possible, so she repeated what the narrator said.

Para. 97-98

I deposited her at the girls’ dormitory, where she assured me that she had had a perfectly terrif evening, and I went glumly to my room. Petey lay snoring in his bed, the raccoon coat huddled like a great hairy beast at his feet. For a moment I considered waking him and telling him that he could have his girl back. It seemed clear that my project was doomed to failure. The girl simply had a logic-proof head.

But then I reconsidered. I had wasted one evening: I might as well waste another. Who knew? Maybe somewhere in the extinct crater of her mind, a few embers still smoldered. Maybe somehow I could fan them into flame. Admittedly it was not a prospect fraught with hope, but I decided to give it one more try.

Q: Why did the narrator say his project was doomed to failure?

A: Polly had a head that was resist to logic.

Para. 99-101

Seated under the oak the next evening I said, “Our first fallacy tonight is called Ad Misericordiam.”

She quivered with delight.

“Listen closely,” I said. “A man applies for a job. When the boss asks him what his qualifications are, he replies that he has a wife and six children at home, the wife is a helpless cripple, the children have nothing to eat, no clothes to wear, no shoes on their feet, there are no beds in the house, no coal in the cellar, and winter is coming.”

Q: What is Ad Misericordiam?

A: It is a fallacy in logic of appealing to pity or compassion. In this fallacy, the reader, or listener, is told to agree to the proposition because of the pitiful state of the arguer.