Bob Hale has argued that logical necessity is absolute necessity. Furthermore, he presents a challenge to the essentialist who tries to evade the consequences of his argument. Here I examine the direct argument he presents for his thesis. I argue that it presents no problem for the essentialist because (1) it begs the question and (2) it relies upon premises that are not entailed by essentialism. I then proceed to show how the essentialist can meet Hale’s challenge
