Jut like the reason for elimination for the proximity to and the exposure to, can we also say that reliance to is Contradicting Evidence.
I mean i am arguing with:
If they are relied on the cancer causing agents, which means casual smokers would have it less and the chain smokers would have it more, the results as presented in the first part of the sentence would be exactly opposite. Is this the valid way of looking at it as a CE rather than NE?
@gregmat @vince @Joan
Don’t mass-ping users.
1 Like
Sure from now onwards.
You would eliminate “reliance” using what’s called the “usage” strategy, which is kind of a dangerous strategy because it somewhat requires using your “ear” or determining if it “sounds good.”
So be careful when you use it, but think of it this way…
Can someone RELY on cancer-causing agents? Like does that make sense?
1 Like
I am finding it hard to do it this way.
What pops up in my mind is: Some one can rely on the carcinogenic substances, like they are addicted to it.
You can definitely rely on substances, like drugs. But you don’t rely on cancer-causing “agents.” They’re different a bit.