 The worry that EU theory is too permissive with respect to desire is related to the worry that the theory is unfalsifiable. The worry is that apparently irrational preferences by the lights of EU theory can always be construed as rational, under a suitable description of the options under consideration. As discussed in  Section 1  above, preferences that seem to violate Transitivity can be construed as consistent with this axiom so long as the options being compared vary in their description depending on, amongst other things, the other options under consideration. The same goes for preferences that seem to violate Separability or Independence (of the contribution of each outcome to the overall value of an option), discussed further in  Section 5.1  below. One might argue that this is the right way to describe such agents’ preferences. After all, an apt model of preference is supposedly one that captures, in the description of final outcomes and options, everything that matters to an agent. In that case, however, EU theory is effectively vacuous or impotent as a standard of rationality to which agents can aspire. Moreover, it stretches the notion of what are genuine properties of outcomes that can reasonably confer value or be desirable for an agent.