1. Goldstein writes: The catch is this: what looks like a statement of the conditions under which an airman can be excused flying dangerous missions reduces not to the statement (i) 'An airman can be excused flying dangerous missions if and only if Cont' (where 'Cont' is a contradiction) (which could be a mean way of disguising an unpleasant truth), but to the worthlessly empty announcement (ii) 'An airman can be excused flying dangerous missions if and only if it is not the case that an airman can be excused flying dangerous missions' If the catch were (i), that would not be so bad—an airman would at least be able to discover that under no circumstances could he avoid combat duty.