 There is one remaining possibility. Perhaps our intuitions are best explained by our belief that Ernie doesn’t have it in his power to do anything other than act according to Diana’s plan. (We think it unfair to blame someone who wasn’t able to avoid doing what he did.) If that’s the case, then the back story of Ernie’s creation functions as a way of making vivid one of the possible ways that an otherwise normal agent at a deterministic world might have got to be the way that he is at a certain moment in his life. Should we reason from our belief that Ernie isn’t, on that occasion, able to do otherwise to the belief that Bert and every normal deterministic agent also lacks this ability, or should we reason in the opposite direction, from Bert’s ability to do otherwise to Ernie’s? This requires further discussion, which we will take up in the section on the Consequence argument. (See also Mickelson 2015b and Huoranskzi 2021.)