This paper argues that the recommendation by Fritz and Plog-that archaeologists adopt the Deductive-Nomological model of scientific explanation-mistakes a conceptual explication for a substantive recommendation. This misinterpretation results in the recommendation of tautologies. The detailed examination of this misinterpretation leads to an investigation of logical inference, the justification of the D-N model, the theory-laden nature of archaeological classificatory predicates, the epistemic status of the laws involved in this data-language, and the relation of the Fritz-Plog research program to the problem of devising and verifying worthwhile hypotheses in archaeology.