<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Occasionally Coherent]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://blog.bimajority.org]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Garrett Wollman]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://blog.bimajority.org/author/garrettwollman/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Another pearl from Anderson&#8217;s article]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>To summarize thus far, opaque sentences require hard work to fully (as opposed to one-sidedly) interpret. Still, the typical six-year-old is conversationally fluent in them. In [] the high-stakes world of legal reasoning, it is surprising that all the king&#8217;s horses and all the king&#8217;s men, often billing by the hour, fall short of extracting the full range of reasonable interpretations of a statute.</p></blockquote>
<p>&mdash;Jill Anderson, <cite><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2293145">supra</a></cite>, p. 50.</p>
]]></html></oembed>