then we answer this with the earlier argument: the generation’s entitlement is established by the apparent wording and cannot therefore be set aside on the basis of an uncertain possibility.

The reply is:

First, this line of reasoning is incomplete without that argument. Yet it was advanced only to corroborate that argument, and corroborating evidence must be distinct from, and independent of, what it supports. If this line of reasoning is incomplete without that argument, its validity depends upon the validity of that argument. A derivative argument cannot be stronger than its foundation or lend it strength. Rather, using it to strengthen that argument amounts to supporting something with itself. This is a form of begging the question.

Since this depends upon that line of reasoning, which we have already answered, this too has been answered.

We further say:

Benefit is precluded on three grounds. First, the endowment is restricted to the children and then their children. Thus, if someone dies leaving a child, his share must go either to his siblings, their children, his own children, or his paternal uncles, since the condition restricts the endowment to the children and then the children’s children.

These beneficiaries belong either to his own generation; to a generation above him—his paternal uncles and others like them, since he is entitled to nothing while his father is alive; or to a generation below him—his children, his siblings’ children, and others of their generation.

As for his own generation, they are excluded by the aforementioned restriction governing their entitlement. As for their children, they are excluded for three