Allen admits that while the Declaration’s claims about tyranny certainly fit established definitions, we cannot judge George III’s conduct from the text alone. This does not mean that we should turn to a strictly historical analysis. Instead, we can examine the relationship between structure and argument. Allen argues that the Declaration “acts its main point out” (228) since it presents all people as equals in political judgment and then provides a list of grievances for all readers to evaluate. The colonists themselves are looking at recent events and deciding what steps to take next. If we “understand how political judgment works in the Declaration without aids beyond the Declaration itself” (229), then its view of human nature is correct.

Allen returns to her final argument about the grievances: They are not only meant to establish that the king is deliberately harming the colonists but also to prove that the colonists are “good anticipators” and can determine they need a new government based on the patterns they see. The list of grievances indirectly paints a picture of what good government is by devoting so much time to its opposite. It is a “dashboard” containing the answers to questions about whether the colonial government was safeguarding their rights and well-being.