One source of complexity in counterfactual reasoning is the order in which events are presented within the conditional. Counterfactuals with a backwards order of events (aka ‘backtracking’ counterfactuals) involve reasoning backward: from the consequent to the antecedent. We extend on prior experimental work (e.g., Rips 2010), and consider the possibilities adults reason over when they backtrack. We find that adults’ reasoning strategies tend to be inconsistent when responding to backtracking questions. In scenarios involving a single causal variable, participants do not generally allow for extraneous changes from the actual world. Furthermore, when reasoning forward along a causal chain, participants do not allow for extraneous changes. However, in backtracking scenarios involving multiple causal variables, participants are at chance in choosing worlds with extraneous changes. We provide novel evidence for the changes allowed from the actual world when backtracking, with mixed support for theoretical claims such as Minimal Networks Theory.