Sarah: When commercial fishing boats with permits to fish for certain species accidentally catch a type of fish for which they have no permit, the latter must be thrown back. ████ ██ █ ████ ████████ ████████ ███████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ███████ ██████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ █████████████
█████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ████ █████ ████ █████ ████████ ████ ██ █ ███ ████ ████████████
Amar implicitly concludes that Sarah’s recommendation to allow fishers to keep accidentally caught fish should not be implemented. He argues that making this legal would likely lead to more "accidents," implying that fishers would claim that certain fish were caught accidentally just so that they could keep the fish.
Amar responds to Sarah’s argument by pointing out that her suggestion would likely lead to a negative consequence: fishers claiming fish were caught accidentally in order to keep fish they caught illegally.
The technique Amar uses in ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ██
question whether Sarah's ██████████████ ███ ██ ███ ████ ████████
point out that █████ ████ █ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
allude to a ██████ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ██████████████
contend that Sarah's ██████████████ ███ ██ █████████ ████████ ███████████
maintain that Sarah █████████ █████████ ███████ ████ ████ ████████