 This is the correct answer because \(Pa\), along with \(Ga\) and abnormic law (16) form the premises of a deductive-nomological explanation with conclusion \(Ea\), but when \(Pa\) is deleted as a premise (leaving \(Ga\) as a premise) and general rule (17) is substituted for abnormic law (16) as a premise, we obtain argument (20), which would count as a deductive-nomological explanation of \(\neg Ea\), were it not for the fact that (17) and \(\neg Ea\) are not true: 