 This last objection applies only to notational consequentializers. As we saw above, notational consequentializers accept two controversial assumptions: the first two premises of their assimilation argument. We already considered their defense of the first premise in  section 4.2.  And now it’s time to see how they defend the second premise: the assumption that if an act-consequentialist theory and a non-consequentialist theory are necessarily co-extensive in their deontic verdicts, then they are equivalent in the strong sense of being mere notational variants of each other.