Yes. And from that sentence, that means person A has attribute D.
But if we disagree on that, we just disagree on English and logic, and I don’t think we’re going to find common ground.
I’ll stop responding to your posts, because we’re not making any progress. But I want to be clear, I respect your position, I just think we can’t get the building blocks together to have a discussion.
One last attempt. Just cause Person A was disqualified from event B because of rule C saying people with D cannot compete. You are concluding person A has D. That event runner got in trouble for corruption. There could be other conclusions than making an assumption or jumping to conclusions. Way more variables and lots to question on the even runners and even the test.
At the end of the day we should have a more confirmed test but at the end of the day all the athletes were fine with all other participants until they werent
No direct source claims A has d. All direct sourced is Person A was disqualified from event B because of rule C saying people with D cannot compete
Yes. And from that sentence, that means person A has attribute D.
But if we disagree on that, we just disagree on English and logic, and I don’t think we’re going to find common ground.
I’ll stop responding to your posts, because we’re not making any progress. But I want to be clear, I respect your position, I just think we can’t get the building blocks together to have a discussion.
One last attempt. Just cause Person A was disqualified from event B because of rule C saying people with D cannot compete. You are concluding person A has D. That event runner got in trouble for corruption. There could be other conclusions than making an assumption or jumping to conclusions. Way more variables and lots to question on the even runners and even the test.
At the end of the day we should have a more confirmed test but at the end of the day all the athletes were fine with all other participants until they werent