Please break down the conclusion statement.

He negates the phrase later. Please disregard.

This is tripping me up also. I do not understand how he is translating large inequalities in wealth to EDW such that I do not see any negation indicators in the conclusion sentence. Always is the only indicator. And how are we supposed to know that language that says it will threaten something means it is a negation of that term. Very difficult.

I get that he negates it afterward - it still doesn't make sense how he gets EDW out of "Large inequalities of wealth." Is there a tip on how to extract EDW out of "Large inequalities of wealth"??