Are the "don't"s needed here?

[toraritte]

forallx-yyc/forallx-yyc-what.tex

Line 203 in 730c388

Depending on what kinds of cases we consider as potential counterexamples, then, we arrive at different notions of consequence and validity. We might call an argument \define{nomologically valid} if there are no counterexamples that don't violate the laws of nature, and an argument \define{conceptually valid} if there are no counterexamples that don't violate conceptual connections between words.

The changed text below is what sounds correct to me, but I've been struggling with math and logic long enough that it may be just me not understanding something fundamental...

We might call an argument \define{nomologically valid} if there are no counterexamples that don't violate the laws of nature, and an argument \define{conceptually valid} if there are no counterexamples that don't violate conceptual connections between words.

---

Thank you making these resources freely available and for putting your time and effort into it!