  We have suggested that the most promising arguments for propositions are the metalinguistic arguments and the Metaphysics 101 argument. The former arguments are plainly theoretical: they appeal to the explanatory power of semantical theories invoking propositions. To resist them, there is no need to explain away their intuitive appeal, because they do not and are not intended to have intuitive appeal. This is not true of the Metaphysics 101 argument.  It is thoroughly intuitive, and so resisting the argument requires giving a story about how and why intuition goes wrong.  In this section, we will consider one general strategy for doing this.