  Commentators differ over the proper way to reconstruct and evaluate the two arguments. With respect to the first argument, some scholars (such as Lewis (1979)) claim that the argument is invalid, some (such as Peterson (1981)) that there are two different valid ways of reconstructing it, others (such as Yi and Bae (1998), and Rickless (2007, 86–90)) that there is a single way to reconstruct the argument, one on which it comes out valid. The second argument is usually thought to be largely homologous to the first.