 Willer (2017: §4.2) suggests that  such a counterexample trades on interpreting  \(\mathsf{\neg(B\land U)&gt;H}\)  as  \(\mathsf{\neg B\land\neg U)&gt;H}\),  and provides an independent explanation of this on the basis of how negation and conjunction interact. If this is right, then an analysis which  validates  SDA  and  SNCA  without rendering \(\neg(\phi_1\land\phi_2)&gt;\psi\) and \(\neg\phi_1\lor\neg\phi_2&gt;\psi\) equivalent is what’s needed. Ciardelli, Zhang, and Champollion (forthcoming) develop just such an analysis. As Ciardelli, Zhang, and Champollion (forthcoming: §6.4) explain, SDA and SNCA turn out to be valid for very different reasons. Champollion, Ciardelli, and Zhang (2016) and Ciardelli, Zhang, and Champollion (forthcoming) also argue that the falsity of (38b) cannot be predicted on a similarity analysis. This example must be added to a long list of examples which have been presented not as counterexamples to the logic of the similarity analysis, but to what it predicts (or fails to predict) about the truth of particular counterfactuals in particular contexts. This will be the topic  of  §2.5,  where it will also be explained why the strict analysis faces similar challenges.