 Fine assumes that “It is rainy”, “It is rainy and windy” and “It is rainy and not windy” etc. refer to different states of affairs (1975: 454). How can this assumption be justified? If we take the idea that states of affairs are complexes seriously, we can answer this question. Just like other complexes they can (at least in part) be individuated in terms of their constituents. The states of affairs \(S_1\) and \(S_2\) can therefore only be the same state of affairs if they have the same constituents. This conception allows for states of affairs that necessarily co-obtain, but differ. For example, necessarily, the state of affairs that triangle A is equilateral obtains if the state of affairs that triangle A is equiangular and vice versa. Similarly, the state of affairs P necessarily obtains if, and only if, the state of affairs \(P \mathbin{\&amp;} (Q \lor \neg Q)\) obtains. Yet, these are different states of affairs: they have different constituents.