In one usage, the idea that laws should be thought of not so much as coercive rules, as predictions of how courts will pronounce on things. Its problem is that it ignores the constrained ways courts must reason towards their verdicts, just as an account that holds that the rules of tennis are predictions of umpire behaviour would leave no way to understand how umpires must reason to their decisions. In a different usage, the optimistic view associated with Dworkin, that in each and every case at law there is one right answer, which it is the job of the court to find.