An argumentative passage that might appear to be an instance of denying the antecedent will generally admit of an alternative interpretation, one on which the conditional contained by the passage is a preface to the argument rather than a premise of it.On this interpretation.which generally is a more charitable one, the conditional plays a certain Face Wrap dialectical role and, in some cases, a rhetorical role as welL Assuming only a very weak principle of exigetical charity, I consider what it would take in a given case to justify accepting the less charitable interpretation.I then present evidence that those conditions are seldom met.Indeed, I was unable to find a single published argument Shorts that can justifiably be charged with denying the antecedent.