 Third, every generalization—used in the inferential path between \(C\) and \(E\)—must be non-redundant in the following sense: it must not be possible to derive the generalization from other explicit beliefs. (A generalization is simply a universal sentence, which may represent a strict or non-strict law.) By means of this condition, Andreas and Günther (2020) try to solve the problem of spurious causation in common cause scenarios. Suppose there is a thunderstorm. Then, we have an electrical discharge that causes a flash which is followed by thunder. The flash precedes the thunder, and there is a regular connection between these two types of events. But we would not say that the flash is a cause of the thunder. So, we need to discriminate between forward-directed inferences with a causal meaning and other forward-directed inferences that lack such a meaning. Note that we can derive the event of the flash and the event of the thunder from the electrical discharge in a forward-directed manner using only non-redundant generalizations, that is, universal sentences that we think are relatively fundamental laws of nature. Among these are the laws of electrodynamics, atomic and acoustic theory, and optics. However, the only inferential path from the flash to the thunder that is forward-directed requires redundant generalizations: universal sentences that we can derive from more fundamental laws (see Andreas 2019 for details). The strategy is that spurious causal relations can be excluded by requiring the generalizations used in the inferential path to be non-redundant. This strategy works in the mentioned common cause scenario. It remains to be seen whether this strategy works in full generality.