Can counterfactuals ever provide reasonable support to an argument? It seems as if this shouldn't be the case (why should something that hasn't happened be of relevance to anything), yet in some instances appears to not be entirely unreasonable. For example, "if you had listened to me and turned LEFT at the light, we wouldn't be late right now" seems valid enough in some favourable circumstances. In fact, whether or not such circumstances are favourable seems to be tied to the (thorny) problem of being able to perform induction. I ask because a lot of people use counterfactuals to "explain" failures/situations ("if you had worked harder, you wouldn't be in this position right now" or "if we hadn't struck first, they would have" etc.). Is this a legitimate argument?