Interested!

The way I thought of the question (and what I initially assumed) was: we don't actually know how how much customers are spending on mail orders. If most customers are already spending $50+, the argument falls apart because they were already getting free shipping on their orders. I went into the answers looking for something that would strengthen by disputing this hypothesis.

If we know that sales go down when there's only free shipping above $50, this weakens the assumption that sales are unaffected by shipping floor amount.

I initially thought the same thing about logic, but then I realized that what JY meant by not extrapolating to a positive rule still applies. Let's say that for example all celebrities are required to vote. We still don't know that their influence will not cause other people to refrain because the stimulus doesn't tell us what would happen if they do vote. All we know is that their publicly not voting causes harm.

If, for example, the celebrities are mandated to vote and get on social media to talk about how voting sucks, their influence could still cause society not to vote, and therefore cause harm.

The way I understood it is that the conclusion isn't to "not not vote" as an action. It's the action/inaction being done publicly in a way that can influence others to cause harm.

I'm in the Wicker Park area and would love to join!

I read the "because of" in the first background statement as the necessary condition for this particular liability rule to be triggered. Perhaps there are other ways for the city to be liable, but any other statements that trigger liability would be assumptions since they are not given as reasons. It's also not specifically implied that there are other ways to trigger liability.