bad pedagogy in backgammon.

I've noticed an annoying habit among various analysts.  Suppose there
are various candidate plays: A, B, C.  The commentator tries to
explain why A is better than B or C.  Various reasons are given and
one of  the reasons might be that play A enables a take next turn
whereas after plays B or C, a pass will be necessary.  However, this
mode of explanation is obviously a pure example of circular
reasoning.  The reason that only play A allows a take is precisely
_because_  A is better than B or C.  The take-next-turn comment
doesn't help at all in establi****ng which of the checker plays is
best.

Paul Epstein