In "For Whom Is Argument and Explanation a Necessary Distinction? A Response to Osborne and Patterson," Berland and McNeill seek to argue that there is an overlap between these two discourse acts such that, in the welter of classroom life, it is difficult to make the distinction. Indeed, in their article Jonathan Osborne and Alexis Patterson did point out that it is difficult to resolve the distinction between the two, stating that "some of the confusion may be attributed to the fact that explanations emerge initially as a hypothesis that 'might' explain." To support their argument, Berland and McNeill cite an example that is a tentative hypothesis offered by students drawn from their own research. They argue that what the students do is both "explain" the phenomenon and argue that it is "better than alternatives." Berland and McNeill's other main argument is a concern that making the distinction would reduce classroom practice to an algorithmic formula in which students are asked "to construct an explanation first, and engage in an argument about their explanations second." This article presents Osborne and Patterson's response to Berland and McNeill's arguments. Osborne and Patterson also reiterate their view that the lack of clarity between the two concepts becomes serious in policy documents that guide curriculum and assessment. To suggest, as the College Board standards did, that an explanation is "a statement that is composed of the following: at least one claim, the evidence that is related to the claim, and the reasoning that makes clear the nature of the relationship between them" (College Board, 2009) is just wrong, as these are the features of an argument. Such errors occur because the field lacks a clear conceptual distinction. Osborne and Patterson's paper is an attempt to say that the distinction matters, particularly when the construct might be used as the basis of operationalizing assessment. While that the distinction is not easy to make, nothing Berland and McNeill have said suggests to them an argument why the distinction does not matter. Rather, they feel that Berland and McNeill have provided further evidence of why the failure to challenge the elision of the two runs the risk of adding to further confusion about the nature and goal of pedagogy in science education. (Contains 2 footnotes.)