The reasoning used by Beckstein is that a student should not be able to satisfy the foreign language requirement with a language that is native to North Americans. Sedley, by way of analogy, demonstrates that this reasoning would also exclude French and Spanish.

Sedley does not show that the evidence used by Beckstein contradicts his conclusion. In fact, Sedley accepts Beckstein’s evidence and constructs it into an analogous argument.

Sidley does not question Beckstein’s authority. He addresses Beckstein’s argument directly without focusing on personal characteristics.

Sidley does not propose an alternative explanation why American Sign Language should not satisfy the foreign language requirement.

Sidley does not agree with Beckstein’s conclusion. In fact, he disagrees with Beckstein’s conclusion and implies students should be able to satisfy the foreign language requirement by learning American Sign Language.