 It may seem that judges need to make such evaluative judgments only in borderline cases for the application of legal language—and that they have discretion in those cases (that is, the judge must make a decision that is not determined by law). That, you might say, would vindicate the sources thesis. But a clear case of a vehicle counts as a ‘vehicle’ for the purpose of the Road Traffic Act just because the evaluative considerations that justify the use of the word ‘vehicle’ in that context clearly support its application. The sources thesis seems to be contradicted even in the clearest cases of the application of a law stated in descriptive language, if the content of such laws depends on how the purposes of the law ought to be conceived. That form of evaluation, you may say, can only be carried out by engaging in the very same form of reasoning that, in Raz’s theory, law excludes.