Parsnip, Stooge, Reciprocity, and Slime

Logic / Critical Thinking Exercise

The following scenario is an exercise in thought. Any similarity to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

Background info:

Daniel Trunk is the CEO of a very large company. His contract is up for renewal and he very much wants to remain CEO for four more years. He is known for his bombastic style and his penchant for telling easily provable lies. One publication has documented over 16,000 lies or misstatements over the past three years. This includes public statements and statements made via social media.

Rowdy Julionus is Daniel’s personal attorney. Rowdy is very loyal to Daniel and is actively engaged in working to ensure Daniel gets a new four-year contract.

Levi Parsnip is a known associate of Rowdy’s. Levi has worked with Rowdy and others in support of Daniel. Coincidentally, as a young man, Levi worked for Friedrich Trunk, Daniel’s father. Levi is under indictment for financial impropriety related to his work for outside groups that support Daniel. In addition, Levi was working behind the scenes with another corporation to convince them to sully the reputation of Daniel’s chief rival for the CEO position.

Levi’s legal woes have made others question his relationship with Daniel.

Daniel stated unequivocally that he does not know Levi. He has never met him, talked to him, or know what he is about. He states there may be a picture of them together because he takes pictures with lots of people at events he attends.

Levi stated that is not true. He said that all his business dealings were done with the full knowledge and consent of both Daniel and Rowdy. He said that he and Daniel do, in fact, know each other. Levi’s relationship with Rowdy is well known. There is no doubt as to their association with each other.

Multiple photographs exist of Daniel and Levi together. There is a video of Daniel and Levi talking. There are other photographs showing Levi with Daniel’s ex-wife, Istaina; Daniel’s son, Daniel Jr.; and Daniel’s daughter Istanka and son-in-law Jerry. Istanka and Jerry both work for Daniel and would keep their jobs if he gets a new four-year contract.

Here is your thought exercise. Using the available details, do you believe Daniel is lying when he days he does not know Levi?

1. Yes, Daniel is lying.
2. No, Daniel is telling the truth.
3. I need more details to reach a conclusion. Are there other witnesses or documents that can corroborate either Daniel or Levi’s statements?
4. I do not care. It does not matter to me if Daniel was complicit in unethical attempts to keep his job as CEO. I am not worried about character or integrity. It is more important to me that Daniel run the company as he sees fit.

What details did you use to come to your conclusion? Remember, this is a fictitious scenario. There are no right or wrong answers. It is just an exercise to examine your thought processes and see how you reach conclusions.

Thanks for playing.