Yes, while not central to the point of the article, opening on a false dichotomy is not a pleasant sight.
Point taken and edited accordingly.I knew there were more than two possibilities, and didn’t say the two I highlighted were the only possibilities for that reason. But I concede that the original wording unnecessarily suggested this.
Yes, while not central to the point of the article, opening on a false dichotomy is not a pleasant sight.
Point taken and edited accordingly.
I knew there were more than two possibilities, and didn’t say the two I highlighted were the only possibilities for that reason. But I concede that the original wording unnecessarily suggested this.