Subtle and weird cohesion
My father's semi-local newspaper (it's from Knoxville), which has just been bought by Gannet and so will be much less local very soon now, ran a story today on that e-cig study from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that includes this:
“In theory it sounds wonderful for a lifelong smoker having a hard time quitting and not successful with nicotine patches or gum to use e-cigarettes that mimic cigarettes and are a good replacement,” Dr. Primack said. But he adds that “it’s not hard to find testimonials from people who [used e-cigarettes to] quit smoking. The potential is there for some people to derive benefit.”,” Dr. Primack said."But"? But?
What does Templeton (the writer) think he's contradicting here? That 'but' is outside the quotes, so it's not Primack's.
"In theory it sounds wonderful" for people to have this new tool, BUT ... what should follow is something that show it's not wonderful, something like "But it's hard to find anybody who has used it to quit." Instead, what Primack "adds" is something that is entirely congruent with the first statement: in theory it sounds wonderful AND it's not hard to find people who say it works.
I'm guessing Templeton bought the study's results.