Cameron Bertuzzi identifies that Drew conflates suffering with unjustified suffering. The real burden is showing the suffering is unjustified, which Drew assumes but doesn't argue. Questions are not arguments — you must defend premises, not just state conclusions.

Cameron distinguishes between suffering existing (granted) and suffering being unjustified (not demonstrated). Drew's argument lacks the key premise: that interpretive-disagreement suffering has no justification. The goods Braxton identified (community, study, relationship) could justify the suffering.