Sometimes, after a number of witnesses have been deposed, the parties will have enough information that they can reasonably predict the outcome of a prospective trial, and may decide to arrive at a compromise settlement, thus avoiding trial and preventing additional costs of litigation. Accordingly, while most depositions are not videotaped, opposing counsel may use the opportunity to get an impression of the witness's affect and appearance, because these are telling factors as to how that person will present in front of a jury. Furthermore, deposition transcripts are frequently submitted in support of motions for summary judgment as evidence that there is no triable issue of fact. The moving party may use transcripts to argue that even if all the testimony given at deposition was given again at trial, no reasonable factfinder could find in the opponent's favor on a material issue of fact. The rationale is that generally, a witness must give consistent testimony on all material issues of fact both at deposition "and" at trial (unless there is a very good reason for changing one's answers), or else the inconsistencies can and will be used to impeach his credibility.