 Non-truth-functional accounts agree that “If \(A, B\)” is false when \(A\) is true and \(B\) is false; and they agree that the conditional is sometimes true for the other three combinations of truth-values for the components; but they deny that the conditional is always true in each of these three cases. Some agree with the truth-functionalist that when \(A\) and \(B\) are both true, “If \(A, B\)” must be true. Some do not, demanding a further relation between the facts that \(A\) and that \(B\) (see Read (1995)). This dispute need not concern us, as the arguments which follow depend only on the feature on which non-truth-functionalists agree: that when \(A\) is false, “If \(A, B\)” may be either true or false. For instance, I say (*) “If you touch that wire, you will get an electric shock”. You don’t touch it. Was my remark true or false? According to the non-truth-functionalist, it depends on whether the wire is live or dead, on whether you are insulated, and so forth. Robert Stalnaker’s (1968) account is of this type: consider a possible situation in which you touch the wire, and which otherwise differs minimally from the actual situation. (*) is true (false) according to whether or not you get a shock in that possible situation.