Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): finding on the basis of supposition: the court inferred a worst-case scenario involving sex with a “child” that would have resulted in the endangerment of Francisco’s own children. The trier of fact may draw inferences, but only reasonable and logical ones. Hammerly Oaks, Inc. v. Edwards, 958 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Tex.1997) (observing that “[t]his Court has held that the trier of fact may. draw inferences, but only reasonable and logical ones,” and noting that the evidence relied on may not just be “ ‘meager circumstantial evidence’ which could give rise to any number of inferences, none more probable than another” (quoting Blount v. Bordens, Inc., 910 S.W.2d 931, 933 (Tex.1995))); see also Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp. v. Nortex Oil & Gas Corp., 435 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex.1969) (<HOLDING>). We agree that an offense occurring before a 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that to uphold the government contentions would require the court to pile inference upon inference (B) recognizing that a vital fact may not be established by piling inference upon inference (C) holding that adverse inference rule is permissive (D) holding that a reasonable inference need not be the sole possible inference (E) holding that the nonmovant need not be given the benefit of every inference but only of every reasonable inference
Output (English): recognizing that to uphold the government contentions would require the court to pile inference upon inference