Where’s Chasi’s argument? Can you make a list of why your tax forms went falsified? What are your views on the sentence even in the version with ‘can’?

The higher percentage is due to more intentional misstatements, BUT presumably it may also be due to the fact that the fraud department has started doing more work than ever to cover the fraud cases.

Is it true that another source refers to a different use of could where there really is a causal link. Is it

possible to buy a car, and I can just make a sale?

Here making the sales is stated as prerequisite for getting the car. Even in this case it could happen that I unexpectedly inherit a fortune and I thus will still be able to buy the car regardless of the outcome of the sale, but I am expressing ‘that making the sale will allow me to buy the car.’’

In the original question the difference between a can and could is mainly how sure you are that there are intentional misstatements and that they affect the percentage. If you know there are intentional misstatements that do affect the results can is more appropriate. If you’re not sure whether there are any or if they affect the percent could is more appropriate IMO.

Where’s Chasi’s argument? Can you make a list of why your tax forms went falsified? What are your views on the sentence even in the version with ‘can’?

The higher percentage is due to more intentional misstatements, BUT presumably it may also be due to the fact that the fraud department has started doing more work than ever to cover the fraud cases.

Is it true that another source refers to a different use of could where there really is a causal link. Is it

possible to buy a car, and I can just make a sale?

Here making the sales is stated as prerequisite for getting the car. Even in this case it could happen that I unexpectedly inherit a fortune and I thus will still be able to buy the car regardless of the outcome of the sale, but I am expressing ‘that making the sale will allow me to buy the car.’’

In the original question the difference between a can and could is mainly how sure you are that there are intentional misstatements and that they affect the percentage. If you know there are intentional misstatements that do affect the results can is more appropriate. If you’re not sure whether there are any or if they affect the percent could is more appropriate IMO.

Where’s Chasi’s argument? Can you make a list of why your tax forms went falsified? What are your views on the sentence even in the version with ‘can’?

The higher percentage is due to more intentional misstatements, BUT presumably it may also be due to the fact that the fraud department has started doing more work than ever to cover the fraud cases.

Is it true that another source refers to a different use of could where there really is a causal link. Is it

possible to buy a car, and I can just make a sale?

Here making the sales is stated as prerequisite for getting the car. Even in this case it could happen that I unexpectedly inherit a fortune and I thus will still be able to buy the car regardless of the outcome of the sale, but I am expressing ‘that making the sale will allow me to buy the car.’’

In the original question the difference between a can and could is mainly how sure you are that there are intentional misstatements and that they affect the percentage. If you know there are intentional misstatements that do affect the results can is more appropriate. If you’re not sure whether there are any or if they affect the percent could is more appropriate IMO.

Where’s Chasi’s argument? Can you make a list of why your tax forms went falsified? What are your views on the sentence even in the version with ‘can’?

The higher percentage is due to more intentional misstatements, BUT presumably it may also be due to the fact that the fraud department has started doing more work than ever to cover the fraud cases.

Is it true that another source refers to a different use of could where there really is a causal link. Is it

possible to buy a car, and I can just make a sale?

Here making the sales is stated as prerequisite for getting the car. Even in this case it could happen that I unexpectedly inherit a fortune and I thus will still be able to buy the car regardless of the outcome of the sale, but I am expressing ‘that making the sale will allow me to buy the car.’’

In the original question the difference between a can and could is mainly how sure you are that there are intentional misstatements and that they affect the percentage. If you know there are intentional misstatements that do affect the results can is more appropriate. If you’re not sure whether there are any or if they affect the percent could is more appropriate IMO.

Where’s Chasi’s argument? Can you make a list of why your tax forms went falsified? What are your views on the sentence even in the version with ‘can’?

The higher percentage is due to more intentional misstatements, BUT presumably it may also be due to the fact that the fraud department has started doing more work than ever to cover the fraud cases.

Is it true that another source refers to a different use of could where there really is a causal link. Is it

possible to buy a car, and I can just make a sale?

Here making the sales is stated as prerequisite for getting the car. Even in this case it could happen that I unexpectedly inherit a fortune and I thus will still be able to buy the car regardless of the outcome of the sale, but I am expressing ‘that making the sale will allow me to buy the car.’’

In the original question the difference between a can and could is mainly how sure you are that there are intentional misstatements and that they affect the percentage. If you know there are intentional misstatements that do affect the results can is more appropriate. If you’re not sure whether there are any or if they affect the percent could is more appropriate IMO.

Where’s Chasi’s argument? Can you make a list of why your tax forms went falsified? What are your views on the sentence even in the version with ‘can’?

The higher percentage is due to more intentional misstatements, BUT presumably it may also be due to the fact that the fraud department has started doing more work than ever to cover the fraud cases.

Is it true that another source refers to a different use of could where there really is a causal link. Is it

possible to buy a car, and I can just make a sale?

Here making the sales is stated as prerequisite for getting the car. Even in this case it could happen that I unexpectedly inherit a fortune and I thus will still be able to buy the car regardless of the outcome of the sale, but I am expressing ‘that making the sale will allow me to buy the car.’’

In the original question the difference between a can and could is mainly how sure you are that there are intentional misstatements and that they affect the percentage. If you know there are intentional misstatements that do affect the results can is more appropriate. If you’re not sure whether there are any or if they affect the percent could is more appropriate IMO.

Will be flourished” is equally stilted at worst. Proof is grammatically wrong at worst. By changing the passive voice you imply that someone else will perform the “flourishing” which doesn’t make much sense as it is the mind that flourishes. Is the flourishing a function of the internal process and in any good fashion that is?

So you could say “will be made to flourish” but that has a different meaning impling a more proactive approach to ensuring the mind flourishes.

I just realised one case where you might use “will be flourished”. Not that it’s not true for this particular application. In case you are using the sense of flourish “To make bold, sweeping movements” I suppose you could say “The flags will be flourished by the flag bearers at that time. “I think it still sounds really weird. You know

I heard this before.