 Consider another Putnam-styled case [Putnam 2004]. Ernie looks into his bag and sees there are 3 coins and nothing else and announces “There are exactly 3 objects in my bag.” Maxi looks into Ernie’s bag and shakes her head “No Ernie there are 7 objects in your bag!” she corrects him. The Carnapian pluralist feels she can defuse the conflict and accommodate both points of view by maintaining that whilst 3 objects exist-in-\(E\) (where \(E\) is Ernie’s everyday framework), 7 objects exist-in-\(M\) (with \(M\) Maxi’s mereological framework). But even if Maxi can endorse both of these claims (since the mereological objects include Ernie’s 3 coins), it is not at all certain Ernie can do so. If Ernie is unpersuaded that mereological fusions of objects are themselves objects, then Maxi’s putative truthmaker for her framework-relative existence claim “7 objects exist-in-\(M\)” will be unconvincing to him.