 Bromberger (1966, 100) goes on to define the correct answer to a why question as follows: \(q\) is the correct answer to (15) if and only if (i) there is an abnormic law \(L\) (which may be general or special) and \(p\) is the proposition that results from predicating of some individual one of the antonymic predicates of \(L\); and (ii) \(q\) together with \(L\) and other premises \(r_1 ,\ldots ,r_j\) constitute a deductive-nomological explanation with conclusion \(p\); and (iii) there is a false proposition \(s\) such that \(s\) and \(p\) are contraries and, were it not for the falsity of \(s\) and \(L\), premises \(r_1 ,\ldots ,r_j\) and the general rule completed by \(L\) would count as a deductive-nomological explanation of \(s\); and (iv) the general rule completed by \(L\) is such that if one of the conjuncts of its antecedent is removed, the resulting general rule cannot be completed by an abnormic law.