Nope, it’s purely logic. I’m sorry you want this woman to work so bad. No one said you cannot imagine what you want, but that distinctly adds information that is not stated.
It doesn’t state the information either way. She may or may not work. Insisting that she doesn’t is YOU (and the original person I replied to) adding information. I accept that both options are possible. Can you?
It’s baked in to the scenario: You get home from work. She’s already been cooking. These are the two clues you need to pay attention to.
That implies she’s at least had some time more at home than who ever’s receiving the food.
Maybe she goes into work earlier than he does, maybe she works from home, maybe she does shift work. There is nothing “baked in” to this scenario.
You have to work with the information provided, not imagine further details. The info provided leans towards implying she stays at home.
No, your bias leans towards this. Careful, your misogyny is showing.
Nope, it’s purely logic. I’m sorry you want this woman to work so bad. No one said you cannot imagine what you want, but that distinctly adds information that is not stated.
It doesn’t state the information either way. She may or may not work. Insisting that she doesn’t is YOU (and the original person I replied to) adding information. I accept that both options are possible. Can you?
I am not insisting. I am declaring agnosticism. The evidence provided does not prove
godher employment.Now please, start using logic instead of daydreaming.