Mary does not question tom’s claim about what occurred in the past. In fact, she concedes that in the past high courts would repudiate decisions because they were old and clearly outdated.

Mary does not agree to Tom’s evaluation regarding the critics’ motives. At best she ignores Tom’s evaluation by not addressing it explicitly.

Tom does not criticize the practice of high courts repudiating past decisions. In fact, Tom defends this practice against some critics’ objections.

The assumption underlying Tom’s conclusion is the high court’s recent repudiation is similar to past high courts repudiating decisions. Mary presents evidence to counter this assumption by introducing a distinction between the present and the past.

The distinction Mary introduces is the distinction between the kinds of decisions the high court overruled in the past and the decisions the high court recently repudiated.