 Sorites arguments are fashioned by assembling as premises a sequence of conditionals the antecedent of each of which after the first is the consequent of the preceding member of the series. According to each premise, if a property belongs to an item or items specified in the antecedent, then it belongs to the item or items specified in the consequent. The argument using the property heap (Greek sôros), from which the genus takes its name, is a good example. If one grain of sand is not a heap, then the result of adding one more grain is not a heap; if two grains are not a heap, then the result of adding one more is not a heap. But it is plain that if one repeats the operation by which these premises are generated often enough, the result will be a sequence of conditionals the consequent of whose last member (n grains of sand are not a heap) is clearly false. Anyone who agrees that it is false, but who has accepted each of the conditionals in the sequence, is obliged to reject the antecedent of the first, that one grain of sand is not a heap, which seems just as plainly true as the consequent of the last premise is plainly false. Those who would avoid this face the difficult task of drawing a line somewhere in the sequence by rejecting one of the premises and explaining why this conditional and not one preceding it is to be rejected.