 Unlike the traditional poverty of the stimulus argument, this version does not rely on developmental evidence, but on our ability to quickly and effortlessly appraise complicated scenarios, such as variations on trolley problems, in a way that is independent of their superficial features (e.g., the way they are described), and then issue normative judgments. The postulated intervening step is like the unconscious appeal to rules of grammar, and the evidence for such a step must come from experiments showing that we do, in fact, have such intuitions, and that they conform to predictable patterns.