 Inspired by Kamp, a subsequent contextualist approach (Raffman 1994) has it that the major premise of the paradox is false but seems true for at least two reasons. First, we confuse it with the true claim that if \(\alpha_{i}\) is \(\Phi\) then \(\alpha_{i+1}\) is \(\Phi\) when the two values are considered together, pairwise. The pairwise claim, though true, does not license the paradoxical conclusion, which makes reference only to a value considered individually. The second reason is a hypothesis, viz., that the major premise can be false, while seeming true, because the speaker performing a forced march undergoes a characteristic change in her verbal dispositions at the moment of switching from ‘\(\Phi\)’ to ‘not-\(\Phi\)’.  This dispositional change constitutes a change of context (akin to a Gestalt-shift) that allows the co-ordinated extensions of ‘\(\Phi\)’ and ‘not-\(\Phi\)’ to shift so that the values \(\alpha_{i}\) and \(\alpha_{i+1}\) flanking the switching place are now both classified as not-\(\Phi\); in particular, \(\alpha_{i}\) is classified as \(\Phi\) before the switch and as not-\(\Phi\) afterward. Thus neither predicate is ever applied in such a way that it distinguishes between the two values relative to the same context, and so the speaker is able to switch from ‘\(\Phi\)’ to ‘not-\(\Phi\)’ without crossing a boundary. The major premise seems true because we fail to realize that truth can be secured for all of its instances together only by equivocating on context.