Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Depends on interpretation of >> an unauthorised, non-employee individual was allegedly living within a secure part of the O'Hare airport terminal No, it doesn't depend on intepretation. There is absolutely no way you could interpret that sentence as meaning "he used a stolen badge to get into areas not open to the public". He may or may not have accessed additional areas, but the article certainly does not claim he…
Apparently it does depend on interpretation since we're having this disagreement. There can't be absolutely no way to interpret in that way, since that's how I interpreted it. Perhaps you're right, & there's absolutely no way I exist
Claim A: The man used the stolen ID to access additional areas besides the arrival area.
Claim B: The article claims that claim A is true.
Do you genuinely believe that claim B is true? If you say "yes", I will concede and accept that the article can be interpreted that way. Otherwise I will assume that there was some confusion between claim A and claim B.