Samuel and Paul make a wager. They want to know if a certain professor held class the day prior when they were absent. The professor is unreachable, though, so they have to ask students from class. If the professor did have class, then Samuel Wins. If not, then Paul wins.
Samuel asks one student, who happens to be the star student who never misses class, and she responds, "Yes, he did have class." Naturally, Samuel believes he's won, but Paul wants Samuel to check again. Samuel responds saying he doesn't want to check again because he fears the first answer might've been wrong. So Paul goads him with this argument:
You won't check again because you think you might be wrong.
If you won't check again because you think you might be wrong, then you're hiding the truth from yourself.
So you're hiding the truth from yourself.
It doesn't seem right, in that case, not to check. Samuel can't turn a blind eye to what might actually be the case just because he doesn't want to lose. That's not fair to Paul.
My question is: Does the reasoning here, which motivates Samuel to check again, seem to be on the up-and-up to you guys?