The Machiavellian Adventures of Princess Eleanor

[furball]

The relevant sentences:

"Perhaps Nell would forgive him for killing this fool? Just a tiny hint of poison? A small accident? No one would miss him. It would alert her to the problem. Then she could do something. Yes, it would not be so bad.

NO! He would lose the last shreds of Nell’s trust, ergo he would be killed."

The first paragraph argues in favor of killing him, ending with, "Yes it would not be so bad."

The second paragraph refutes the first, because he would lose Nell's trust, therefore he would *not* be killed.

If the first paragraph means, "yes, it would not be so bad to kill him," and the second paragraph means, "NO, therefore he would be killed," the argument makes no sense.

EDIT: Froggy, I assume, "He would lose the last shreds of Nell's trust," because he would have killed the guy Nell set up as his keeper. Is that assumption incorrect?