There are many, but one is The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I read it as a child, and it was the first time I thought about logical thinking.
Here is the section:
“Logic!" said the Professor half to himself. "Why don't they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn't tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth. ”
Lewis was instrumental in helping me understand that faith can be based on a foundation of logic and reason versus pure emotion and my guess is he helped many others struggling in that same area.
Lewis' argument isn't sound; if Jesus indeed claimed divinity, that sole conviction could be a delusion, without rendering all of his other statements delusional.
This kind of reasoning is typical of apologists in my experience; it sounds right, but it doesn't hold up to scrunity.
This looks kind of like logic if you squint, but is actually a logical fallacy.
This issues is of course there are of course more than 3 options. If she had been deceived intentionally than none of the given three examples apply. Further, it assumes you can verify that she was 'telling lies' or 'insane' as an abstract property of her which is another mistake.
That said, I can see why someone might find it a useful introduction to logic.
Eh? If she was deceived (intentional or not) she is in fact telling the truth, since to her it is real.
There aren't more than three option present, but you're more correct that you may not have enough information to deduct which option is a proper representation of the true fact.
There's no real issue with the logic, outside of arguing that making a conclusive decision here is perhaps premature. That's situational though.
If a kid says the magician cut their assistant in half they are not lying, insane, or telling the truth.
What someone observes, what someone thinks they observed, what they remember, what they say happened, and what actually happened are generally all different things.
Lewis and Tolkien both spend a lot of time exploring the internal moral and ethical struggles of their protagonists, the development of courage, and the importance of doing the right thing even when no one is looking or in the face of opposition. This was hugely important to me as a kid, and recently I've been going back to The Lord of the Rings to read up on courage in the face of looming evil.
Here is the section:
“Logic!" said the Professor half to himself. "Why don't they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn't tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth. ”
What I didn't realize at the time was that Lewis was pushing his theistic argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma
I don't think that detracts from it, however.