This paper deals with the distinction between two roles of a deductive argument in the communication: explanatory and suasive. The distinction was hinted out by Michael Dummett, in his The justification of deduction. The paper attempts to show various controversial consequences of the distinction. For example, there is a belief that, regarding the arguments used in the explanatory mode, obvious threat of circularity is not in fact “interesting”. Quite the opposite, it seems to be something natural. The aim of the paper is to critically reconsider the distinction between the roles of a deductive argument as well as its consequences.