Great question! I'm not sure I have a great answer. I'm hashing out answers in my head and I'm not sure they're satisfying. Option 1: a calculator responds to evidence and spits out a rational answer. Seems to debunk my position. But the calculator can only do rationality. Option 2: A person can choose irrationality even in the face of evidence. Option 3: Or there might be more than one rational answer and a person can choose between either rational outcome. So it might depend on whether someone could do otherwise—or at least think otherwise if they were physically constrained. Feel free to keep undermining this. But I think you're right that merely responding to evidence isn't enough for free will to be evident—although I sort of intuitively think that the capacity for rationality underpins freedom. I'll have to think about this more, but you raise a good point.