From fc313ee5745d6660413949bb7301c06d20d92abc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jacob Walchuk <jpw24@st-andrews.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:48:07 -0700
Subject: paper 2: graphics fixed (Ds and Fs ital'd, sorites items bolded)

---
 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 efbc913..a4ba95e 100644
--- a/papers/3.tex
+++ b/papers/3.tex
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ Thus, overall, while AH response is a good substantive explanation answering the
 In this paper, I have examined three responses to Williamson's Explanation Challenge and argued that each response faces their own problems. While I argue for the stronger conclusion that the first two challenges fail, I argue for the weaker conclusion that the last response succeeds but only with additional dialectical cost to contingentism. I hope this paper has helped to clarify the stake of Williamson's ``first horn" to contingentism in Chapter 6 and strengthen his argument against contingentism. 
 
 \section{Appendix}
-
+\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0pt}
 \subsection{The proof for (Tracking)}
 First, we can observe the following proof: \\
 \begin{quote}
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

