Everyone knows that reducing a subject to a simple question of" if "or" no "is usually problematic. LaVanguardia.com daily conducted a survey whose results is published the next day. The question on Friday was "adopting the Act compels the abortion to inform their parents except in cases of coercion?" I usually watch every day the question is proposed from LV and almost always with participio my vote. But yesterday I could not do. If the answer was positive, was accepting that in certain cases of "coercion" not informed parents. But the problem arose with the negative response, because it has two possible interpretations. The first one, which follows a first-time indicates that approving the law obliged to inform the parents. But there is another possible interpretation: those who disagree with what informed only when there is a hypothetical "coercion", who adopted a communication to parents in all cases (not to mention those who are disagree with the bill in general). Surely those who raised the issue not realized that the question caused some confusion but, on the contrary their aim was to make the reader think, congratulations, because he has succeeded.
LSR
"I can not change the wind direction, pero fit the candles to always arrive at my destiny." JD 
0 comments:
Post a Comment