Through the use of logic, simulation, and empirical data, Benjamin A. Most and Harvey Starr develop and demonstrate a nuanced and more appropriate conceptualization of explanation in international relations and foreign policy in Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics. They demonstrate that a concern with the logical underpinnings of research raises a series of theoretical, conceptual, and epistemological issues that must be addressed if theory and research design are to meet the challenges of cumulation in the study of international relations (or any area of social science). The authors argue for understanding the critical, yet subtle, interplay of the elements with a research triad composed of theory, logic, and method. The authors use "opportunity" and "willingness" as pre-theoretical structures to link contextual, environmental or macro-factors to decision making, and micro-process factors and outcome. They also focus on war as an example of the range of international phenomena resulting from interdependent interaction and express concerns that research design may not be logically consistent with the empirical phenomena and related theory it is supposed to study. In particular, the authors cite the weaknesses of static attritubte analysis and the need for more dynamic, process-oriented approaches. The logic of inquiry approach, which focuses onprocess within a framework of opportunity and willingness, forces the analyst to cut across levels of analysis and confront the need to look for both domain-specific "nice" laws and grand theory within which to ground such research. If international relations research is to add up, analysts must ask their questions correctly as well as tend to the logical correctness of the research designs developed to answer those questions.