Please formalize the argument seen in the following passage: look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: you will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. all these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. the curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed. by this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence

An employee of the state government always received his state paycheck on the last workday of the month. the employee was not a good money manager, and just barely managed to make it from paycheck to paycheck each month. on the second to the last workday of the month, the employee had $45 in his checking account, and, needing to buy a birthday gift for his sister, he wrote a check to a gift boutique for $100. he knew that he would be receiving his paycheck the next day, so he could deposit the paycheck before the check would be sent to the bank.however, unbeknownst to the employee, the state legislature was having a budget impasse. because the state constitution prohibited any deficit spending, state employees were not paid as usual. without a paycheck to deposit, the check written to the gift boutique was returned for insufficient funds. the merchant complained to the police, who arrested the employee and charged him under a statute that prohibited "issuing a check knowing that it is drawn against insufficient funds, with intent to defraud the payee of the check."what should be the outcome of the employee's prosecution? a not guilty, because the employee intended to deposit his paycheck the next day.b not guilty, because it was reasonable for the employee to expect that he would receive his paycheck as usual.c guilty, because the employee knew when he wrote the check that he did not have sufficient funds in his account to honor it.d guilty, because reliance on a future source of income does not vitiate the employee's violation of the statute when he wrote the check.