- I read the way you worded it before reading the Catch-22 you linked to. Just based on the one you wrote, I would say it’s close but still needs a justification (can/want/need/should) after the unless. Unless they want to be insane, unless they should do something insane. Unless they should not be evaluated.
The idea here is that even if you are insane, you still carry the need to be evaluated in order to be excused. The reason you would no longer carry that need to be evaluated is if you wanted to or should do something insane for some reason. Or if you wanted or should not be evaluated for some reason. You still NEED to be evaluated to bring about the context of being excused. But if you don’t care about being excused because you want, can, or should do something else, then it doesn’t matter if you do what is necessary to bring about that context. If you should, you don’t need. If you need, you can’t should.
- After reading the Catch-22 you linked to, I think I’d list the conflict as something like One needs to be evaluated in order to be labeled unfit for combat unless one should avoid any sign of sanity in order to avoid being labeled sane.
The short version would be One needs to be evaluated to be labeled unfit for combat unless one should avoid any sign of sanity.
The conflict comes from the need to be evaluated while also trying to avoid any sign of sanity. By grasping on to the need for evaluation one misses out on the context of avoiding being labeled sane. But by grasping on to the idea that you should avoid any sign of sanity, you cannot be labeled unfit for combat.
Same sort of issue going on here. There’s nothing to justify against the first statement, nothing to COUNTER that statement. All this does is imply that you don’t really need to be evaluated.
People need to be evaluated in order to avoid combat unless being evaluated doesn’t get you out of combat…in which case you really don’t need to be evaluated after all.