 is sufficient for \(E_2\). Indeed, the cluster of the sounding of the hooters in Manchester (\(E_1\)), the absence of any conditions that would make the Manchester hooters sound when it was not five o’clock (\(\neg D\)), and the presence of all conditions (\(C_3\)) that are together with it being five o’clock (\(C_1\)) jointly sufficient for the workers going home in London (\(E_2\))—this cluster is sufficient for the workers going home in London. Hence, \(E_1\) is at least an INUS condition of \(E_2\). If \(D\) is not instantiated, but \(C_2,\) \(C_3,\) \(E_1,\) and \(E_2\) are, then the instantiation of \(E_1\) counts as a cause of the one of \(E_2\). More generally, an effect of a cause \(C_1\) may be part of an instantiated cluster sufficient for another effect of \(C_1\). This shows that, on Mackie’s theory, an effect of a common cause may falsely count as a cause for another effect of said common cause.