Hart's response to the objection based on penumbra cases is that penumbra cases are quite rare. They are, after all, penumbra cases, not core cases. Fuller, however, is unsatisfied. He comes up with a counterexample that is purported to show that penumbra cases are not rare at all. He seems to think that the interpretative problems posed by penumbra cases are endemic to the law. What is Fuller's counterexample?

Group of answer choices

Fuller uses the example of the law "no sleeping allowed in the train station". A homeless person who was half-asleep during the night in a train station would violate this law, even though - strictly speaking - he was never sleeping. Instead, a passenger waiting for the train who briefly fell asleep would not violate this law, even thought he did actually fall asleep contra to what the law mandates.

Fuller uses the example of the law "no vehicle is allowed in the park". Since this is such a common and ordinary piece of legislation and the concept of "vehicle" admits of penumbra cases, Fuller must be right that penumbra cases are ubiquitous in the law and thus Hart must be wrong.

The counterexample Fuller uses against Hart has to do with Nazi laws. Nazi laws can be considered invalid only if we do not subscribe to legal positivism. Crucially, there are plenty of invalid laws -- specifically, invalid laws whose invalidity depends on their immorality. Now since (a) invalid laws are numerous and (b) invalid laws are also paradigmatic of penumbra cases, it follows that Hart is wrong in saying that penumbra cases are exceptional or rare.