 A second problem concerns the question whether a dispositional account can indeed avoid the dilemma for exclusive cp-laws (see section 4). Even though it is true, at least on one version, that the laws no longer appeal explicitly to cp-clauses, the triviality-or-falsity-dilemma turns up at a different place (see Lipton 1999, section 5: Hume’s revenge). The dispositionalist still has to specify the stimulus or triggering conditions for the disposition in order to give the disposition’s ascription a determinate content. The conditions under which the disposition will manifest itself are exactly those that are required to explicate the cp-clause (see Lipton 1999, section 5; for an extensive discussion of this problem cf. also Schrenk 2007b). So, explicating the triggering conditions of a disposition requires that something informative is said about the cp-clauses, and more generally, leads us back to the problems discussed in the previous sections (see Hüttemann 2014 for a recent defense of the dispositionalist approach to cp-laws; Ward 2009 provides a critical discussion). 