Here seems to be an argument against the a posteriori logic of aristotle regarding his four causes.
Why does the tree of knowledge in the midst of the garden exist?
Does it exist as aristotle might argue for its a posteriori final cause("good to eat"), then next for its formal cause("fair to the eyes"), then next for its material cause("delightful to behold"), then finally for its efficient cause("gave to her husband who did eat"). If you did not pick up on it, the four aristotle a posteriori causes regarding the "why" of the tree of knowledge mirrors the exact order of eve's processing.
Or, conversely, does the tree of knowledge exist for its a priori efficient cause(he who made it), then next for its material cause(to test our "touch")? Eve said two things, which is interesting. Because, I have been informed that modern philosophy has reduced the 4 causes down to two, rejecting the final cause and the formal cause from philosophical relevancy. With that said, let's get back to Eve. Eve said two things in response to the serpent. In order, she said,"God hath commanded us"(efficient cause = God) that we should not eat(separate from edibility), and "that we should not touch"(material cause) lest we die. That makes two causes in a priori anti-Aristotelian order.
So, if you use aristotle a posteriori logic regarding the tree of knowledge, you are going to be using the logic of the serpent.
If you use a priori logic regarding the tree of knowledge, you will be using the logic of one who wishes to obey God's 1st command to man.