Reasonableness usually implies more than just a logicality, including fairness. To then say that the 30% cut is reasonable means that to say that it's fair. Le

Reasonableness usually implies more than just a logicality, including fairness. To then say that the 30% cut is reasonable means that to say that it's fair. Let's assume reasonableness were equivalent to logicality. Then, for a decision to be reasonable, it must satisfy some logical conditions. I'd argue that is in our case maximizing a fixed metric in relation to all other possible options. One either doesn't value fairness in the decision-evaluation metric, the 30% cut is fair enough or it's unreasonable. So, putting it all together, we get (1) 30% is fair (enough), (2) one doesn't value fairness prominently in decision making metrics or (3) the 30% cut is unreasonable. I'd say the 30% is _not_ fair (enough). That leaves one to pick (2) or (3).