Pallister's piece draws attention to the problems in the arguments of musicians and venues by arguing that it is irrational for such establishments to be open past 1 am anyway. In particular, the author asserts that they should "surely [be able to] turn a profit closing at 1 am" where the high modality of "surely" implies that there should be no doubt in readers' minds as to the tenability of that proposal. This insinuation that the business owners are being disingenuous or are at least mistaken in their beliefs is strengthened through his facetious allusion to the "dim, distant past" of the 70's and 80's where, he explains, establishments closed at such times without complaint. Hence, through forging a link between the venues of the past who the audience can infer to have been flourishing, and the "suffering" businesses of today, the author seeks to elicit readers' derision and contempt for the "bad management" of the latter. Furthermore, by concluding his piece with a juxtaposition of what the hotels and clubs "say" - suggesting that their claims may not be honest or true - with the question of their potentially negligent business sense, Pallister encourages his audience to view the dissatisfaction with lockout laws as being unfounded or as a deflection from the real reason for business failures. Similarly, Bivell's piece also critiques those who oppose lockout laws, but where Pallister endeavours to undermine people's motivations for rejecting the laws, Bivell instead is more concerned with the hypothetical extensions of their opposition. He sarcastically supposes that those who are against the laws on the basis of them being the product of a "nanny state" must also oppose "ambulance[s ]... hospital[s ]... health insurance" and the "justice system" since they are also products of government initiatives. In this sense, Bivell aims to establish a connection between the lock out laws with notions like health insurance that functions to keep citizens safe and...