Evidence is not inference
Separate what you observed from what you concluded, in your own reasoning.
From the record
YES if, before the deadline, a federally regulated prediction-market exchange is legally authorized to offer contracts on professional sporting events under applicable federal law. NO otherwise. Mere proposals, applications, or pending litigation do not qualify.
The evidence attached to this question is dated and attributed. Each piece is something someone can go and check, not something someone believes.
What to take from it
Evidence is what a source said, on a date. Inference is what you concluded from it. Both belong in a judgment, and the trouble starts when they are written down in the same sentence, because a month later you cannot tell which part you checked and which part you assumed.
The habit worth building is small: when you record a reason, mark where the observation stops. "The agency published a figure of 4.1% on the ninth" is evidence. "So the programme is unlikely to continue" is inference. The first can be wrong in only one way, and you will find out. The second can be wrong in many, and you will not find out unless you wrote it down separately.
This is also the difference between changing your mind well and changing it badly. When new evidence arrives, you revise the inference. When the evidence itself turns out to be wrong, you have learned something about your sources, which is worth more.
Go and read the question this opened with in full. A lesson you have not tested against a real record is a lesson you have only agreed with.