  Interestingly, Goldman (1978) later rejects this account of ability after considering cases where, at \(t_1\), the agent can \(\langle a\rangle\), but would not \(\langle b\rangle\) and thus would not \(\langle X\rangle \), regardless of her intentions at \(t_1\). Such cases are ones where it’s possible for the agent to \(\langle X\rangle\), but Goldman argues that it would be “pointless to use this account of ability when assessing the range of activities which a moral principle should assess”. This is because agents “could not make practical use of” prescriptions to perform such alternatives. These types of cases will be discussed in more detail the next section. For now, the important takeaway is that while an agent can perform such conjunctive act-sets in the sense picked out by Ability 1, there may be times before the agent acts during which she cannot ensure that she will perform these act-sets. So, while it’s possible for Procrastinate to \(\langle X\rangle\) by intending to \(\langle a\rangle\) at \(t_1\) and then intending to \(\langle b\rangle\) at \(t_2\), it may also be true that, at \(t_1\), Procrastinate would not \(\langle b\rangle\) at \(t_2\) no matter what she intends to do at \(t_1\). In light of such cases, Goldman proposes the following account of ability. 