The development of a sound theory of the arguing of policy questions in debate requires that the Affirmative be obligated to demonstrate the solvency of its plan, regardless of the paradigmatic origins of the case theory. While the specific degree of demonstration which is necessary to establish solvency remains a substantive issue within the context of a given round, the basis of such an obligation remains constant. The advocate of change in a proposition of policy has the responsibility to demonstrate that the effects claimed from the proposition are correlated to specific mechanisms within the plan. The prediction of alleged effects is a burden of affirmation, and need not follow from the failure of negation. Ultimately, the adequacy of a proposition is not measured in terms of the effects claimed, but rather through the probability of the effects' occurrence; an explicit obligation exists on the part of the Affirmative to prove that the plan does in fact remedy the problem. The theoretical requirement for an advocate to predict the consequences of a proposition is best measured in practice by the correspondence between inherency dysfunctions which preclude status quo action with plan mechanisms which address these dysfunctions. (DF)