 Paul devotes the whole of the first chapter of his treatise on insolubles in the Logica Magna to the rejection of fifteen other proposed solutions. The treatment can be seen as falling into four groups, the first three groups corresponding to three sources on which Paul draws: first, he runs rapidly through seven of the eight alternative solutions considered by Bradwardine in his treatise, for the most part summarising almost verbatim Bradwardine’s own criticism. He then turns to Heytesbury’s criticism of alternative solutions, starting with the second of the four solutions considered by Heytesbury, that of John Dumbleton. (The first one Heytesbury rejects is Swyneshed’s, which Paul will himself accept.) The next (third on Heytesbury’s list) is Kilvington’s, and then Paul comes to Bradwardine’s own solution. Thus the first ten solutions considered are all from Oxford, or at least, those discussed at Oxford in the two decades from the early 1320s to the early 1340s. With the eleventh solution, Paul turns to his third source, namely, Peter of Mantua, the eleventh being Albert of Saxony’s solution, presented at Paris in the early 1350s, and possibly the same as John Buridan’s own early solution. (However, Marsilius of Inghen, whose solution is not discussed by Peter or Paul, appears to have distinguished Albert’s solution from Buridan’s early view: see Spade 1975, 79.) Albert’s is the first view discussed by Mantua. Next comes Heytesbury’s (Mantua’s second) solution. Before proceeding to the third solution discussed by Mantua, Paul considers Peter of Ailly’s solution at some length, seemingly drawing directly on Ailly’s own treatise, to the discussion of which Paul appends (without distinguishing it by number) a criticism of Mantua’s solution. Finally, Paul turns to a rejection of restrictivism, the first solution rejected by Bradwardine and the third by Mantua. But Paul deals with the specific form given to it by Walter Segrave (see  Section 3.2).  