  Sam’s case certainly seems possible as described. Davidson’s view,  though, must reject it as impossible. Given his conduct, Sam can’t  think it best to abstain; at most, he thinks it all-things-considered best to abstain, a very different kettle of fish. But this seems  false of Sam: there is no evidence that he has remained stuck at the  Hercule Poirot stage with respect to the superiority of abstaining.  He seems to have gone all the way to a judgment sans phrase  that abstaining would be better; and yet he drinks.