 The bilking argument drives one towards the claim that any belief an agent might hold in the positive retrocausal correlation between event C and event E is simply false. However, Dummett (1964) disputes that giving up this belief is the only solution to the bilking argument. Rather, according to Dummett, what the bilking argument actually shows is that a set of three conditions concerning the two events, and the agent’s relationship to them, is incoherent: