Okay, and is your argument that we find and hold against their retrospective because there is some, at least plausible basis should so argument, to say that there can be a causal connection between the retrospective extension and some benefit that can be traced to those particular works through the retrospective extension, like dissemination? Is that your argument?
The argument is clear to the person
The argument is not clear to the person because the are asking a number of questions. If it was clear they wouldn't need to clarify. The system could likely not understand that asking questions equates to not understanding something. Although to note, this particular example was very difficult to understand and read as gibberish. 
( z1 clear :ARG1 ( z2 argue ) :ARG2 ( z3 person ) )