In my opinion on this article, one reason the subhead "It’s Funny, None of These Theories Seem Adequate " was necessary is because the article is clearly mixing up categories or levels of explanation. 1. and 3. are attempts to explain the "why" of humor from a logical or functional standpoint ("what are the criteria on which we decide something is funny?"), whereas 2. attempts to answer a totally different question, i.e. why do we laugh from a physiological standpoint (that is, what is the advantage or evolutionary benefit (because it gives us "relief"). In other words, for the purpose of this article, only 1. and 3. are relevant in the first place.