I'd like to nominate Scrooge's little logic battle against the charity workers as *not* a Chewbacca Defense. The logic behind his argument is sound if you think about it, but relies on false premises, most notably that the charity workers are directly benefiting from their own work. I'll run you through it real quick:
A: There are poor people all around B: You are collecting money to help them
All OK so far, but here's where it starts to go pear-shaped: (I use the # symbol to denote "conclusion.")
A: There are poor people all around B: You are collecting money to help them >S#1: If you collect enough money, they will no longer be poor S#2*: If they are no longer poor, then you won't have to collect money for them anymore, and will lose your job
- : Therefore, to ensure your job security, I will not donate money<
(*I'm not sure if these should be "sub-conclusions" or "sub-premises. It's been a while since I put one of these together.)
The "Collector for the Poor #1" and "Collector for the Poor #2" thing bothers me. Can't we just call these characters Mr. Rat and Mr. Mole? If someone concurs they can make the change, I don't want to do this unilaterally.