When it comes then to a truly evident judgment, propositions which are per se nota can cause evident judgments because the truth of those propositions can in no way be doubted.
Mises added a practical objection, in terms of one individual, Robinson Crusoe's capabilities: 'No single man can ever master all the possibilities of production, innumerable as they are, as to be in a position to make straightway evident judgments of value without the aid of some system of computation.' (in Hayek 1935, 102).
If this is how we can understand an evident proposition, what then constitutes an evident judgment?
He says that the idea of "complex evidence" can be understood in two ways: either as referring to the apprehension of an evident proposition itself or to the so-called "evident judgment" which has been caused by this evident proposition.
However, besides propositions per se nota there are certain mechanisms through which originally dubitable propositions can come to be evident in the third degree, thereby necessitating assent and causing a truly evident judgment.
Presumably, this act of acquired belief is an act of the intellect and a response to the relative evidence of a given proposition or an entire syllogism taken together (see above An Evident Judgment).
Thus, for a truly evident judgment to take place, a single evident proposition cannot be its cause, rather all three propositions of the syllogism must be taken together in order for the concluding proposition to have the evidence it needs to not only appear true, but to compel the mind's assent (LS I:199 208).
According to Wodeham's description of different types of evidence, it is clear that this "proof" is not able to compel a truly evident judgment because the proof remains open to doubt and thus only reaches the second degree of evidence.
POC is the "font of all certitude" insofar as, if it were called into question, the most evident and secure judgments of human knowledge, such as knowledge of the self (as a thinking thing), could likewise be called into question.
The report also claims that Jim Berg, who served as dean of students from 1981 until 2010 and was responsible for handling sexual abuse disclosures, ad a "lack of formal training and professional supervision" that "was evident in several judgment errors in the counseling he offered".
Admitted errors in judgment and evident deficiencies in command performance make the conclusion inescapable that the machinery for policing the police was in disarray.
