If counterexamples can succeed by semantic transparency rather than structural analysis, the demarcation of logical constants is a post-hoc theoretical artifact, not a presupposition.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Post-hoc theoretical artifact(suggests that logical constants may be invented categories, not discovered truths): Something created after the fact by theorists to organize their thinking, rather than something that was actually fundamental from the start.
Structural analysis(as an approach that claims neutrality): A method of studying how society works by looking at the systems and institutions (like laws, workplaces, families) rather than just individual people's choices.
counterexample([IHT] arg. 2): A possible obligational situation (casus possibilis positus) that verifies the antecedent and falsifies the consequent of an inference
demarcation(describing the core issue shared by both conceptions): The problem of drawing a clear line between two things—in this case, figuring out where one concept ends and another begins.

Based on where you are in your exploration