No e-grow you insisting on a precedent
is a canard.
What you are supposed to say is "
without an identifiable precedent it is unlikely that they will achieve
their stated aims".
The absence or presence of a precedent has absolutely ZERO bearing on whether that is their aim or not. I'll leave you to waste your time looking for one.
That's the direction of the logical implication.
If the absence of a precedent means that one cannot be established none would ever be set.
I studied formal logic at a post graduate top 5 global uni and despite the fact that you didn't if you think about it this should be pretty obvious.