**Q&A Session** We will be hosting a virtual Q&A on Zoom on September 8th, from 17:00-18:00 London time. Please use your full name when entering the Zoom session. To avoid Zoombombing, we'll use a Waiting Room. https://zoom.us/j/99257657050?pwd=eXU5YzUzY2F1QnEzT0sxYmVaRUZQZz09 **Materials** The video our talk is also available below and on [YouTube][1]. Below you will also find the slides and the abstract. **Short abstract** Our talk is concerned with the interpretation of conditional questions introduced by the *wh*-word *why* (*why*-conditional questions, WCQs for short), such as `If you are cold, why are you wearing a tank top?'. We observe that WCQs -- unlike the other conditional questions -- cannot be uttered out of the blue and hence have a hypothetical reading; instead, the felicitous utterance of a WCQ requires some interlocutor's commitment to the proposition in its antecedent ($p$). This makes WCQs necessarily *premise conditionals* in the sense of Iatridou (1991) and Haegeman (2003). Along with Goebel (2017), we assume that premisehood is a specific use of a regular indicative conditional sentence. We explain the premise interpretation of conditionals as a combination of their thematic nature and the discourse constraints derived from the fact that $p$ has its own discourse history. Additionally, we derive the necessary premise interpretation of WCQs from the impossibility of entertaining the question ``what happens if $\neg p$?'', which is necessary for the hypothetical interpretation of indicative conditionals. [1]: https://youtu.be/y29WwRw4rmY