This chapter analyzes Chapters 1 and 2. It argues that Fitch's intent was to pinpoint a disruptive set of logical properties that lend themselves to the trivialization of conditional analyses. Or, at the very least, Fitch included the central theorems to demonstrate a sort of conditional fallacy that threatens, although not irredeemably, against his own analysis of value. If this is right, then Fitch does not take the knowability proofs to be paradoxical, but instead takes them to be a lesson about how intensional operators interact, surprisingly, to thwart the efforts of conditional analyses. Fitch's demonstration of the knowability proofs may be understood as a logical lesson in how to avoid the so-called 'conditional fallacy' in philosophical analysis.