 Why has no experimental set-up yielded a ‘missing’ spin-value of \(^1 /_{20}\)? H1 allows a better answer to this question than H10 does, for H1 is consistent with a simple and parsimonious explanation, namely that there exist no particles with spin \(^1 /_{20}\) (or less). In the case of H10, this potential explanation is ruled out because H10 explicitly postulates particles with spin \(^1 /_{20}\). Of course, H10 is consistent with other hypotheses which explain the non-occurrence of missing \(^1 /_{20}\)-spin. For example, one might conjoin to H10) the law that neutrinos are always emitted in groups of ten. However, this would make the overall explanation less syntactically simple, and hence less virtuous in other respects. In this case, quantitative parsimony brings greater explanatory power. Less quantitatively parsimonious hypotheses can match this power only by adding auxiliary claims which decrease their syntactic simplicity. Thus the preference for quantitatively parsimonious hypotheses emerges as one facet of a more general preference for hypotheses with greater explanatory power.