 For there is a reading of (17) on which, notwithstanding (17)’s truth, (22) is false: this is the reading on which Daniel has indeed memorized a list of facts, but without necessarily realizing that the things he is memorizing are facts. He has memorized the relevant fact (that this is a leap year), we might say, but not as a fact. That is parallel to the reading of (18) according to which Daniel has memorized the true proposition that this is a leap year, but not as a true proposition. The identity theorist might then aver that, perhaps surprisingly, the same point actually applies to the simple (21), on the grounds that this sentence can mean that Daniel remembers the propositional object that this is a leap year (from a list of such objects, say, that he has been asked to memorize), with no implication that he remembers it either as a proposition or as a fact. So, according to this response, the transparent reading of (18)—which has Daniel remember the propositional object, namely that this is a leap year, but not necessarily remember it as a fact, or even as the propositional object that this is a leap year (he remembers it under some other mode of presentation)—is also available for (17) and for (21).