 Intuitively, Bromberger’s account makes \(Pa\) the correct answer to (18) in virtue of the idea that \(Pa\) is a full specification of the special (or “abnormal”) circumstances triggering the expansion of \(a\). Notice that one of the premises of the deductive-nomological explanation of \(Ea\), namely \(Ga\), is not part of the triggering package and is not part of the correct answer to (18). Two factors in Bromberger’s account jointly keep \(Ga\) from being included. The first is that \(Ga\) is a premise not only in the actual deductive-nomological explanation of \(Ea\) but also in the fictitious deductive-nomological explanation (20) of \(\neg Ea\). So relative to (16) and (17), \(Ga\) is not a special or abnormal circumstance. Is there another abnormic law/general rule pair relative to which \(Ga\) would be included in the correct answer to (18)? Apparently not, which brings us to the second factor excluding \(Ga\) from the correct answer to (18): if \(Gx\) is dropped from (17) we obtain the general rule ‘Nothing expands’, which it seems that no abnormic law  completes.[5].