"One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens" He's proposing a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument, implying strict adherence to the "fall on the sword" pr

"One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens" He's proposing a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument, implying strict adherence to the "fall on the sword" principle causes prosecution of salespeople. Because there's an implication, if you accept his argument, then you either reject strict adherence to the principle(modus tollens) or accept prosecution of the salespeople(modus ponens). You interpreted his comment as accepting prosecution of the salespeople, but I believe he intended you to conclude rejection of strict adherence to the principle.