Presuppose that you are Yossarian's advocate. Rule out the solutions in the 1961 novel that appear unlawful and too dicey, such as deliberately self-inflicting wounds or a crash
'Danby, Orr planned it that way. Don't you understand--he planned it that way from the beginning. He even practiced getting shot down. He rehearsed for it on every mission he flew. And I wouldn't go with him! Oh, why wouldn't I listen? He invited me along, and I wouldn't go with him! Danby, bring me buck teeth too, and a valve to fix and a look of stupid innocence that nobody would ever suspect of any cleverness. I'll need them all. Oh, why wouldn't I listen to him. Now I understand what he was trying to tell me. I even understand why that girl was hitting him on the head with her shoe.'
and fleeing to Sweden.
Getting shot down or crashing a plane could have maimed or killed Orr, obviously! Sweden and the USA signed an extradition treaty on 14 March 1983.
How would you gainsay Yossarian's Catch-22 with solely logic, to excuse Yossarian from flying on the ground of insanity? Wikipedia logically formulated it.
Or would you need to plead some other excuse ASIDE insanity, e.g. physical illness? But this feels like a strawman fallacy, because now I'm changing the premises behind this original Catch-22!