Recently, some people have suggested that in order for imagination to be a useful guide to knowledge of what is possible, one has to imagine a situation that represents the possibility in question. This is what I will call the concrete conception of imagination and I will argue that these accounts of an imagination-based epistemology of possibility face a serious problem. I will focus on the linguistic content that these accounts need in order to get the substantive epistemology they promise us. As many have pointed out, this linguistic content needs to be restricted, as it is the linguistic content that is the gateway to impossibilities. So, recent accounts have focused on sophisticated ways of restricted the linguistic content (e.g., Kung 2010). I argue that even these sophisticated ways of restricting linguistic content fail because the only way that they can account for problem is by relying on prior modal knowledge of necessities. This undermines the project of providing an imagination-based epistemology of possibility.