Comment by AnthonyMouse
3 years ago
> No, it's not assuming, it's interpreting based on prior experience in communication.
It's assuming the intent without sufficient context to know what it actually is. Because very little context was provided. And the context that was provided strongly implied that the rule was important.
> Then the sign would mention that, simple as that.
We don't even know if there was a sign. None of that was specified.
> And the context that was provided strongly implied that the rule was important.
You're assuming that.
No, they were interpreting based on prior experience in communication.