This article explores the use of logical formalization to clarify an area of research characterized by conflicting claims and divergent empirical findings. The substantive focus concerns the relation between organization age and the hazard of mortality. The literature contains claims that the hazard (a) falls with age (a “liability of newness”), (b) rises initially and then falls with age (a “liability of adolescence”), (c) rises with age (“liabilities of senescence and obsolescence”). The formalizations reported cast the relevant theoretical arguments as propositions involving five concepts: endowment, imprinting, inertia, capability, and position. It shows that each of the theoretical stories can be derived as implications of particular assumptions within two broad formalizations. This analysis clarifies the mechanisms at work in each theoretical account and provides guidance for empirical research designed to discriminate among the competing theories.