 This condition on explanation cannot help us as theorists, Skow argues, because it is not even true. Thus suppose we construe “possessing” an explanation as knowing an explanation. Plugged into the formula, the result is that one cannot know an explanation of why Q unless that knowledge constitutes an understanding of why Q. But, plausibly, we can know an explanation of why Q without understanding why Q. For example, someone can know why the litmus paper turned red—because it was dipped in acid—without understanding why it turned red (Skow 2018: 215). This suggests it takes more to understand why p than simply to know why p. In the case of the litmus paper, Skow claims one also needs to appreciate how the acid turns the paper red, or why it turns it red.