▁that ▁we ▁can ▁understand , ▁in ▁an ▁un problem atic ▁way , ▁truth ▁about ▁a ▁present - ten se ▁statement . ▁Assume ▁that ▁it ▁is ▁true , ▁now , ▁when ▁one ▁claims ▁" On ▁ 2 2 ▁May ▁ 2 0 0 6 , ▁Student ▁X ▁is ▁writing ▁a ▁paper ▁for ▁her ▁philosophy ▁sem inar ," ▁and ▁call ▁it ▁statement ▁A . ▁Suppose ▁that , ▁a ▁year ▁later , ▁someone ▁claims , ▁" On ▁ 2 2 ▁May ▁ 2 0 0 6 , ▁Student ▁X ▁was ▁writing ▁a ▁paper ▁for ▁her ▁philosophy ▁sem inar ," ▁and ▁call ▁it ▁statement ▁B . ▁According ▁to ▁Michael ▁Dum m ett ’ s ▁exp lication ▁of ▁the ▁truth - value ▁link , ▁" since ▁the ▁statement ▁A ▁is ▁now ▁true , ▁the ▁statement ▁B , ▁made ▁in ▁one ▁year ’ s ▁time , ▁is ▁like wise ▁true ." ▁It ▁is ▁in ▁understanding ▁the ▁truth - value ▁link ▁that ▁one ▁is ▁able ▁to ▁understand ▁what ▁it ▁is ▁for ▁a ▁statement ▁in ▁the ▁past - ten se ▁to ▁be ▁true . ▁The ▁truth - value ▁pers ists ▁in ▁the ▁t ense ▁shift ▁– ▁hence ▁the ▁" link ." ▁ ▁Crit ic isms ▁▁ ▁Some ▁philosoph ers , ▁including ▁Michael ▁Dum m ett ▁and ▁John ▁Mc D ow ell , ▁have ▁critic ized ▁truth - value ▁link ▁real ism . ▁They ▁argue ▁that ▁it ▁is ▁un int ellig ible ▁to ▁suppose ▁that ▁training ▁in ▁a ▁language ▁can ▁give ▁someone ▁more ▁than ▁what ▁is ▁involved ▁in ▁the ▁training , ▁i