 First, take (1): Hochberg, Armstrong and Hossack argue that the fact that \(a\Rel b\) does indeed suffice for \(R\) to hold between \(a\) and \(b\), because the fact that \(a\Rel b\) cannot exist unless \(R\) does hold between \(a\) and \(b\). So once the fact that \(a\Rel b\) has been admitted into our ontology, the later stages of Bradley’s regress either don’t arise or they harmlessly supervene upon the admission of this fact. But, MacBride counters, this presupposes that Bradley’s argument has already been disarmed. Ask yourself: what is a fact? What distinguishes the fact that \(a\Rel b\) from the mere plurality of its constituents: \(R\), \(a\), \(b\)? Just this: that the constituents of the fact are related. But Bradley’s argument is intended to establish that we cannot understand how it is possible for things to be related. So unless we have already established where Bradley’s argument goes wrong, we cannot appeal to the existence of facts because facts are cast into doubt by his argument too.