With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". all); and (4) there is no definition of “substantial or motivating factor” by which a sufficiency review can be conducted in this case. Although I agree that the instruction was poorly phrased, I do not read it as loosely as the majority. Rather, I believe the “If you find ..., then you will find.... ” language is tantamount to saying, “If you do not find ..., then you will not find.... ” and, accordingly, that the third sentence of the instruction required a but-for standard of causation. Moreover, because I do not believe that the evidence identified in the majority opinion is sufficient to satisfy a but-for standard, I would sustain the State’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to prove causation. 1 . See Tex. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 637 (Tex.1995) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Nor do the first two sentences of the

A: holding that the core inquiry is whether the police would have discovered the evidence if the misconduct had not occurred
B: holding that it was pure speculation that if the preference payment had not been made the vendor would have been included as a critical vendor and the court would have approved it
C: holding that correct causation standard is whether employers action would not have occurred when it did had the employees protected communication not been made
D: holding that it is not the courts role to decide whether an experts opinion is correct
C.