44 Adina Moshavi to the charge that they have unfairly monopolized the king (2 Sam 19,43). A pair of RQs representing the premise “Not (B or C)” are preceded by a “why” RQ implying the conclusion “Not A”: “Why are you angry over this matter? Have we consumed anything that belongs to the king? Has he given us any gifts?” If this were modus tollens, the argument would be “If you are angry with us, then it must be that we have consumed something that belongs to the king or that we have received gifts from the king. Since neither of these is the case, you should not be angry with us.” But clearly the speakers do not mean to assert that these are the only possible reasons for the Israelites to be angry with them regarding the king. These are merely examples of situations that the speakers admit would constitute legitimate grievances if they had occurred. In other words, in the modus tollens reconstruction the first premise in the argument is false, rendering the argument incorrect even from the perspective of the speaker. The denying-the-antecedent form yields a better result: “If we had consumed something that belongs to the king or we had received gifts from the king, then you would be justified in being angry with us. Neither of these situations is the case (nor, we believe, are any other situations that would justify your anger.) Therefore, you should not be angry with us.” In nearly all examples of denying the antecedent the premise is expressed by a yes-no question, e.g., (51) “Now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again?” (2 Sam 12,23) “Are the palms of Zebah and Zalmunna already in your hands, that we should give bread to your troops?” (Judg 8,6) In a few instances the premise is expressed by a content RQ, e.g., How many years are left to me, that I should go up with the king to Jerusalem? (2 Sam 19,35) What do you lack with me, that you seek to go to your own country? (1 Kgs 11,22) 6. Presumptive modus tollens As described above, deductive modus tollens and presumptive denying of the antecedent are neatly distinguished both in logical nature and in argumentative purpose. Examination of the Biblical corpus, however, shows that modus tollens has a presumptive use that closely mirrors denying the antecedent. In order to illustrate this point, I examine a discourse function typical of argumentative RQs: refusal of a directive previously issued by the addressee. Directives can be taken to imply a modal proposition A of the form, (51) See also, e.g., Gen 31,14; Exod 14,11; Num 11,12.22; 22,37, Judg 8,15; 14,3, 1 Sam 17,43; 2 Sam 3,8; 12,23; 19,36.