From f7cee7212ad9626541dcc922a0cd762eb7450a38 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jacob Walchuk <jpw24@st-andrews.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2025 22:08:08 +0100
Subject: grammar fix

---
 papers/3.tex | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'papers/3.tex')

diff --git a/papers/3.tex b/papers/3.tex
index 6b3f574..6066649 100644
--- a/papers/3.tex
+++ b/papers/3.tex
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ Secondly, I worry that logical consequence is too lax an explanatory basis; that
 Here is an example that I have in mind:
 
 \begin{quote}
-(Racist Explanation). \hspace{\labelsep} The Racists believes that every member of race A is evil. Consequently, he believes that a member of A $o$ is evil. When asked why he thinks $o$ is evil and consequently refused to offer $o$ equal payment/respect as other employees, the Racist says, ``Well, this is a logical consequence of my belief. What more do you want me to explain?''
+(Racist Explanation). \hspace{\labelsep} The Racist believes that every member of race A is evil. Consequently, he believes that a member of A $o$ is evil. When asked why he thinks $o$ is evil and consequently refused to offer $o$ equal payment/respect as other employees, the Racist says, ``Well, this is a logical consequence of my belief. What more do you want me to explain?''
 \end{quote}
 
 There is something wrong with both explanations.\footnote{Of course the Racist is subject to my previous challenge as well: I can simply ask the Racist why he believes that every member of race A is evil in the first place. He is not discharged of explanatory demand. But here I am developing a different problem for the Racist.} 
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

