 Quine (1982: Ch.3) suggests that no state of the world could settle whether  (19a)  or  (19b)  is true. Similarly he contends that it is not the world, but sympathetically discerning the speaker’s imagination and purpose in speaking that matters for the truth of  (18b)  versus  (18a) (Quine 1960: §46). Rather than promoting skepticism about a semantic analysis of counterfactuals, Lewis (1973b: 67) took these examples as evidence that their truth-conditions are context-sensitive: the possibilities that are considered when evaluating the antecedent are constrained by the context in which the counterfactual is asserted, including the intentions and practical ends of the speaker. All contemporary accounts of counterfactuals incorporate some version of this  idea.[17]