This sequence reminded me of Freud's comments [ Cf.  S. Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, 1900, SE vol. IV, describing the joke in which a man, accused of having damaged the teapot a neighbor had lent, expounded his innocence by warranting that: (1)  he had returned the teapot in perfect condition; (2) the teapot  was already damaged when he borrowed it; (3) he had never borrowed his neighbor's teapot in the first place.  Freud shows that each isolated explanation is acceptable - not the hashed three when simultaneously presented. This anedocte is also mentioned in 1905, on Freud's book on "Jokes and the Unconscious" (ch.II, sec.8 on double-meanings that give rise to false sophisms.) ]