 Can all metaphysical explanations be understood in quasi-causal terms? Those who want to argue that they can have their work cut out for them. They first need to explain how explanations like our (3) and (4) can be modeled in this way. Perhaps more surprisingly, some argue that this sort of account might not even work as an account of all types of metaphysical explanation involving grounding. It is generally thought that a conjunctive fact is grounded in its conjuncts. Yet, unless we think of conjunction-introduction as a (mechanistic) determination relation—something Trogdon cautions strongly against (and others: see, e.g., Wilsch 2015)—this is grounding in the absence of a grounding mechanism.