 Kripke’s reasoning can be applied to the present case (Kripke and others might dispute this claim; see below). Let \(w\) be a possible world just like the actual world in that \(O\), the original ship, is manufactured exactly as it is in the actual world. In \(w\), however, another ship, \(S'\), exactly similar to \(O\), is simultaneously built out of precisely the same parts that \(S\), the remodeled ship, is built out of in the actual world. Since \(S'\) and \(O\) are clearly different ships in \(w\), it follows by ND that \(O\) and \(S\) are not the same ship in the actual world. Note again that the argument assumes that \(S\) and \(S'\) are the same ship, but it seems quite a stretch to deny that. Nevertheless, some have done so. Carter,1987 claims (in effect) that \(S\) and \(S'\) are not identical, but his argument simply assumes that \(O\) and \(S\) are the same ship. Alternatively, one might view the (Kripkean) argument as showing only that while \(S\) is the same ship as \(O\) in the actual world, \(S\) (that is, \(S')\) is not the same ship as \(O\) in \(w\). But this is not an option for one who adheres to the standard account and hence adheres to ND. In defending this view, however, Gallois, (1986, 1988) suggests a weakened notion of rigid designation and a corresponding weakened formulation of ND. (See Carter 1987 for criticism of Gallois’ proposals. See also Chandler 1975 for a precursor of Gallois’ argument.)