Coerciveness is doubtlessly one of law s most salient elements. Law not only orders the performance of conducts, but also makes threats and authorizes the use of force to enforce its orders. Taxes, fees, restraint of assets, revocation of rights and imprisonment are existing practices in all paradigmatic legal systems. Despite the salience of coercion in all legal systems, the great majority of contemporary legal philosophers think that coerciveness is not an essential property of law, that is, it is not a property present in all circumstances in which law exists. The argument normally used by those philosophers is that it is possible to have law without coercion, because it is possible to have a circumstance composed solely by cooperative subjects. In this circumstance, the introduction of coercion becomes unnecessary, for such subjects follow the law regardless of coercion. In this work, I argue that one version of the argument normally used by those philosophers to defend this thesis - the puzzled men argument - does not work. The objections presented aim to show that there is coercion in a circumstance composed solely by puzzled men, and that the existing institution in this circumstance is not a genuine instance of law. During this work, I clarify what the puzzled man is and make some considerations about coercion aiming to dispel some confusions.