Argument list interpretation

To place this argument in perspective assume that both trans and cis adducts were equally likely. Then stereoselectivity would not be observed. All of the adducts to base atoms listed in Table XII for trans addition correspond to the sterically forbidden possibilities for cis addition and vice versa. Therefore, l(+) and i(-) isomers would bind equally well to N2(g). This does not occur. Rather the favored Sjj2 reaction over the Sjjl reaction weights trans addition heavily. Therefore, in our interpretation of experimental yields, the smaller yield of i(-) with N2(G) is predicted to be a cis addition product. The argument can be extended to demonstrate that trans l(-)-N6(A) and 06(G) and cis l(+)-N6(A) and 06(G) adducts should be expected. 

Jenkins argument seems to rely on strategic considerations (Jenkins 2011, 269f. -here adapted to the present list of examples) A reductive interpretation of examples similar to those on the list discussed in the previous section seems at least conceivable. If so, and if we want our notion of dependence or grounding to cover... 

When the interpreter computes (or evaluates, in Lisp jargon) a list, it always assumes that the first element of the list is the name of a function and the rest of the elements are the arguments that the function needs for processing. In the above example, the interpreter performs the addition of two numbers the name of the function is the symbol + and the two arguments are the numbers 330 and 336. 

If an argument for a function is also a function itself, then the argument is evaluated first, unless specified otherwise. The general rule is that the innermost function is evaluated first. In the case of various nested functions, the outermost one is normally the last to get evaluated. The Lisp interpreter treats each nested list or function independently. For example ... 

---