He supports this claim by first appealing to logos

He supports this claim by first appealing to logos, which establishes stories that emphasizes the decisions that people must make about how to view similar situations. Such as, in the two fishes, the grocery store and the wilderness, the audience logically ends with having the characters in all three situations to hurt from the weakness in their reckoning. The fishes in Wallace’s speech asks, “What the hell is water?”, the grocery store story touches on the issues, ordinary adult life after college and the wilderness story which communicates us with a dispute between a Christian and an atheist man, which of course the atheist incorrectly assumes that God does not exist because he was not there to aid him, he then however, had to rely on the Eskimos. In all scenarios, the audience understands Wallace’s irony: that people would expect the two fishes to know what water is, life is tedious, boring, frustrating, and that the Eskimos who “happened to come wandering by” the, in need of rescue, atheist were sent to him by God. In which case, all these stories enhances Wallace’s argument that “blind certainty, a close-mindedness that amounts to an imprisonment so total that the prisoner doesn’t even know he’s locked up” is the result of a lack of awareness.