This question asks respondents to perform two tasks. First, a respondent must identify the distinction which Leff repeats on pages 94-5 and Gaonkar makes on pages 56-8. Although the one sentence preface to this question provides a respondent with a paraphrase of Gaonkar’s claim and Leff’s repetition (which appears to be aimed at facilitating the respondent’s answer), the interaction between this prefatory sentence and the actual question could potentially cause confusion. For instance, a respondent reading the word “here” could associate “here” either to pages 94-5, Leff’s repetition, or pages 56-8, Gaonkar’s claim. Alternately, attributing the distinction to Leff, Gaonkar, or both Leff and Gaonkar might resolve any potential ambiguities. Constructing the question with an active verb as opposed to “is” might further facilitate attribution. Admittedly, this specificity may not be necessary because the prefatory sentence indicates that each instance says the same thing. Second, a respondent must evaluate this distinction’s importance. In this part of the question, the respondent must judge the distinction in any way that respondent sees fit. In other words, the question does not supply any criteria with which the respondent should judge the distinction. Furthermore, the presence of parentheses in the question seems to imply that there is, in actuality, an inherent importance within the distinction. One could ague that the fact that this question is even articulated implies that there is some importance to the distinction, yet the parentheses seem to position the negative response—viewing the distinction as unimportant—as an afterthought added after this question was formulated. Perhaps rephrasing the question as a question plus a directive (“Do you find this distinction important? Explain your answer.”) would avoid implying that the question is important.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?