How does the model reconstruct scientific explanations? What is the role of laws of nature in scientific explanations? Does it account for all cases of scientific explanations? Consider objections to this model, some maintaining that is too broad, others that it is too narrow, and come to a reasoned conclusion about the adequacy of this model.. Philosophy

This model reconstructs scientific explanations in the sense that the explanans form a true logical basis based on natural laws of nature and from that, logical explanations are able to be deduced from that. The role of the laws of nature in this model is that laws of nature are con­crete and always true thus setting up a premise for the explanandum to be true. However, it does not account for all cases of scientific explanation. For example, in the classic flagpole ex­ample, the flagpole is 15 meters high and due to true laws (light travels in straight lines and the laws of trigonometry) the shadow is 20 meters long. On the contrary, it is not true in the reversal sense. The flagpole is not 15 meters tall because the shadow is 20 meters long. The flagpole is 15 meters tall because someone made it that way. The explanans are all true, but the explanan- dum is not regardless of the the true statements by laws. It is an adequate model to follow for reasoning in science in the sense that it does result in the logically correct answer. However, it is not adequate in the sense that it is reliable in the both directions of the argument.