 For Rhodes , throffers can not merely be biconditional proposals . If Q proposes that P pay $ 10 @,@ 000 so that Q withholds information that would lead to P 's arrest , then despite the fact that the proposal is biconditional ( that is , P may choose to pay or not pay , which would lead to different outcomes ) it is not a throffer . This is because choosing to pay cannot be considered attractive for P independent of Q 's proposal . P 's paying of Q does not lead to the satisfaction of an attainment @-@ want , which is a necessary condition for a proposal 's being an offer under Rhodes 's account . The exception to this is when an agent offers to help another overcome a background threat ( a threat that was not introduced by the proposal ) . Biconditionals , in addition to either threats or offers , may contain neutral proposals , and so not be throffers . The possibility of another agent 's not acting is necessarily neutral . Throffers are those biconditional proposals that contain both a threat and an offer , as opposed to biconditional proposals containing a threat and neutral proposal , or an offer and a neutral proposal . In the case of throffers , it is always going to be difficult or even impossible to determine whether an agent acts on the threatening aspect of the proposal or the offer . 
