 Second horn: If we instead suppose that an indefinite exclusive ceteris paribus clause is attached to the law so that it means “All \(A\)s are \(B\)s, if nothing interferes”, then the cp-law in question is in danger of lacking empirical content. It lacks empirical content because it seems to say nothing more than “All \(A\)s are \(B\)s or not-(All \(A\)s are \(B\)s)”. If this is true, then exclusive cp-laws are analytically true sentences and, therefore, trivially true. This, however, is an unwelcome consequence because laws of the special sciences should be reconstructed as empirical statements—not as sentences being true in virtue of meaning.