 Even if we accept the transposed form of “\((x)(Rx \supset Bx)\)” as the basis for an answer to a reason-seeking why-question—in this case, how we know that \(c\) is no raven—Figure 5 surely does not explain why that is the case, which presumably has to do with the genes of entity \(c\) and its developmental history as a living thing. If logically equivalent forms equally qualify as lawlike—there’s no basis in extensional logic to deny it—then Hempel confronts a dilemma. In fact, by his own conditions of adequacy, this argument is not only explanatory but also predictive. It is not a “postdiction” as he has defined it above, but it appears to qualify as a “retrodiction” that does not explain its explanandum event.