According to Schilling, Blunk, and Hill, the set of papers presented in this journal issue had two main purposes: (1) to use an argument-based approach to evaluate the validity of the tests of mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT), and (2) to critically assess the author's version of an argument-based approach to validation (Kane, 2001, 2004). In this article, the author offers his critique to this set of papers. He begins by responding to the critique of his version of argument-based validation, and then makes some comments on the validity argument proposed for the measures of MKT. The authors of these papers seek to make the argument-based approach more prescriptive, in the expectation that this will make it more practical. The author does not see what he terms "this more prescriptive approach" as an improvement.