This argument is subject to a series of possible attacks, against each of its subarguments (a subargument being an argument which is included in a larger argument): its top subargument may be undercut by establishing that Mary was not at fault (she used the available medical knowledge correctly); the interpretive subargument can be attacked by contesting the very idea that the proposed interpretation promotes careful behaviour among doctors (on the contrary, it may undermine patient care, since doctors may become too risk-averse, knowing that they may face the difficult task of proving a negative, namely, that they did not act negligently); the empirical subargument can be rebutted by providing a contrary expert opinion, or it can be undercut by challenging the expert’s reliability, among other options.