In many respects, Swift is satirizing Swift's appeal to logos in the essay. He claims that approaching a society's social issues in an extremely logical manner (without addressing morality) might lead to disastrous conclusions. For example, if one were to argue that all crimes should be punished with death, this would be absurd because some people are innocent of any crime. Swift also uses the example of two otherwise rational men: "Aristotle and Plato". Both philosophers argued extensively about good and evil without ever coming to an agreement. In fact, they so strongly disagreed on most topics that they could not even talk to each other. Despite their disagreements, Aristotle did acknowledge Plato as an important philosopher in his time and Plato praised Aristotle for his wisdom. Swift then concludes by saying that he believes "the same may be said of the great Logicians in our World today" who have been unable to come up with any kind of consensus on certain issues such as crime and punishment. He argues that logic alone is not enough to solve real-world problems and that we need more than just good logic. Overall, this passage shows that although logic is very useful it cannot replace moral judgment when trying to understand or change society.