Sentence examples for may responded that from inspiring English sources

Corbyn accused her of not addressing the problem of 4 million children in poverty; May responded that the numbers of families in absolute and relative poverty were falling.

Through a spokesman, Prime Minister Theresa May responded that Trump was "wrong" to promote the agenda of a group that spreads "hateful narratives which peddle lies".

May responded that the last Labour government had vowed to tackle social care when it came to power in 1997, and despite the delivery of a number of reports had made no progress: "Thirteen years and no action whatsoever".

The Labour leader continued: "Why was there not one penny more to social care in the autumn statement?" May responded that there was "absolutely no doubt the social care system is under pressure", noting the extra 1 million people aged over 65 since 2010, but insisted the government had pushed through extra spending on this.

His defenders may respond that Wright has no choice how he feels, only choices about how to represent it.

Bob Shrum: "A foreign-policy adviser may offer counsel on the best approach to dealing with Iran; a strategist may respond that the recommended course is likely to make it hard to get elected".

Proponents of the argument from blame may respond that it is inappropriate to blame harmful non-agents (like trees and tigers) and agents whose harms are unintentional.

Others may respond that this is a "boring" sentence, offering something like "All rabbits are hares," or "All mothers have children" as alternatives.

Note however, that actualists may respond that they need not be committed to the actuality of possible worlds so long as it is understood that quantifiers used in their theory of language lack strong ontological import.

Davies (or the proponent of any other ontological account that diverges from ordinary language) may respond that the goal is not to mirror all everyday utterances, but to articulate an accurate ontological doctrine.

Someone may respond that the liberty to use what belongs to another is license not liberty, and so its exclusion should not really count against a private property system in the libertarian calculus.