 Furthermore, arguments are not well suited to account for explanatory asymmetry, for there is a disparity of temporal asymmetry in explanations and in arguments that makes the latter fit for prediction and retrodiction, but unfit for explanation. Take for instance a lunar eclipse, which can be predicted on the basis of the laws of motion and a suitable set of initial conditions holding prior to it. The same eclipse can also be retrodicted making use of posterior conditions and the same laws. However, explanations are temporally asymmetric in a very specific sense: they go from antecedent conditions to subsequent events. Such asymmetry is not embodied by arguments, which often move in the opposite direction. There emerges a divergence between prediction, which is an inferential activity, and explanation, which is not.