That's like trying to prove apples are good by saying oranges are orange.
-Some bloke on a forum

Given that
oranges = orange
It follows that
orange + s = orange
Some simple arithmetic yielded
orange - orange = s
But, by the identity property
orange - orange = 0
So it follows that
s = 0

Extending this along the number line, I found that:
t = 1
u = 2
v = 3
w = 4
x = 5
y = 6
z = 7
And
r = -1
q = -2
p = -3
o = -4
n = -5
m = -6
l = -7
k = -8
j = -9
i = -10
h = -11
g = -12
f = -13
e = -14
d = -15
c = -16
b = -17
a = -18

Then, I took the assumed premise
apples = good
And translated it to:
a + p + p + l + e + s = g + o + o + d
A simple summation revealed that:
-45 = -35
Which is clearly not true.

At this point in my research, I became very disheartened, since it would appear that because of the existence of oranges, apples could not possbibly be good. Since I happen to like apples, this made me a little sad, so I wasn't about to give up there. I asked myself, "Self, this doesn't add up. There must be something I'm missing. What else are apples?" and myself answered me "Why, me, they sure are tasty as well!"

So I tried the following premise:
apples = tasty + good
Which yields:
-45 = -45

"Eureka!" I shouted, waking my roommate, who gave me a very nasty look.

Therefore, I put forth this argument that since oranges are orange, it follows logically that apples are NOT ONLY good, but tasty as well. Mmm, apples. :P