She discusses some views on how to reason about common sense statements like "Smith's failure to water her office plants caused their death". The salient views covered are:
1. causation by absence is impossible (making the plants statement false)
2. causation by absence is possible and attributing an absence to a cause is sound when the absence is "abnormal". This could be because Smith normally waters the plants, it was Smith's job to water the plants, or Smith made a promise to water the plants.
3. causation by absence is not possible, but it is valid to offer "causal explanations". This is the suggested approach in the paper. A causal explanation provides information about the causal history of an event, but doesn't need to specify a specific node in the causal graph. C causes E is a causal statement. E because C is a "causal explanation". E because C doesn't necessarily imply C causes E. So adopting this approach, The plants died because Smith failed to water them is a true statement that provides some additional explanatory information, Smith failing to water the plants caused their death is not.
I think these distinctions may have some minor implications on how you perceive blame.