Not necessary, because whatever Sanderson believed his cousin “wanted” has no bearing on whether Sanderson intended to mislead his cousin. Sanderson could have intended to mislead his cousin into thinking the factory would remain open regardless of what Sanderson knew about what the cousin wanted.

Not necessary, because whether other people told Sanderson’s cousin that the factory would close has no bearing on whether Sanderson intended to mislead his cousin. Sanderson could have intended to mislead his cousin even if the cousin wouldn’t have been misled because he learned about the factory’s closing from someone else.

Necessary, because in order for Sanderson to have the intention of misleading his cousin, Sanderson would have to believe that he was giving his cousin a FALSE impression that the factory would remain open. But if Sanderson actually thought the factory would remain open (in other words, that it would not in fact be closing) — then Sanderson would not have been trying to mislead his cousin. Rather, Sanderson would have been trying to give his cousin what he believed to be the CORRECT impression of what would happen. And that would take what Sanderson did outside the realm of “lying.”

Not necessary, because what Sanderson would have done if the cousin had directly asked has no bearing on what Sanderson in fact did. The argument is that what Sanderson actually did was morally wrong. That doesn’t require an opinion about what Sanderson would have done under different circumstances.

Not necessary, because what matters is whether Sanderson had the intention to mislead. Whether Sanderson had something to gain from his actions is a separate issue from whether he had the intention to mislead. Someone can intend to mislead another person even if there’s nothing to be gained from it.