  One of the primary motivations for adopting the non-standard picture is that the standard picture makes it difficult to understand the second part of the dialogue as anything other than incoherent.  The problem is this. On the standard picture, D1 and D2 together appear to entail that if the one is, then the one is F and is not F (and the one is con-F and is not con-F), and hence that it is not the case that the one is. Similarly, D3 and D4 together appear to entail that if the one is, then the others are F and not F (and the others are con-F and not con-F), and hence again that it is not the case that the one is. On the other hand, according to the same picture, D5 and D6 together appear to entail that if the one is not, then the one is F and is not F (and the one is con-F and is not con-F), and hence that it is not the case that the one is not. And similarly, D7 and D8 appear to entail that if the one is not, then the others are (or at least appear to be) F and not F (and the others are, or at least appear to be, con-F and not con-F), and hence again that it is not the case that the one is not. Putting all eight Deductions together, the overall result on the standard picture is a straightforward contradiction. One advantage of the non-standard interpretation, then, is that it avoids reading the Deductions as an extended argument for a necessary falsehood.