Kane's paper "Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores" is the most complete and clearest discussion yet available of the argument-based approach to validation. At its most basic level, validation as formulated by Kane is fundamentally a simply-stated two-step enterprise: (1) specify the claims inherent in a particular interpretation and/or use of test scores (IUA); and (2) provide an evaluation of the claims (validity argument). Kane discusses four types of inferences that provide a scaffolding for addressing these two arguments: scoring, generalization, extrapolation, and decision rules. Decision rules, in particular, are closely related to consequences, which loom large in the argument-based approach to validation. The present commentary on Kane's paper attempts to simplify some of his discussions, while expanding others. The author suggests that Kane's argument-based approach to validation offers by far the best current basis for optimism about improvements in validation. (Contains 7 notes.)