<p>If conceptual analysis is a method for knowing the essence of law, it must be able to produce such knowledge. However, the product of the method seems to be knowledge of the concept of law. Hillary Nye poses one of the latest challenges against conceptual analysis: how can an analysis of the concept of law produce knowledge of the essence of legal systems? In this paper, I take up this problem. I argue that the conceptual analysis method can produce knowledge of the essence of law. To do that, I compare thought experiments, on which the method relies, with scientific models. Based on that, I claim that, because the process involved in both thought experiments and models is the same, they also bring about the same epistemic products. Consequently, I establish a re-imagined method of conceptual analysis that can produce knowledge of the nature of law.</p>