 For example, positionalists typically maintain that their positing roles, slots, pockets and relative properties enables them to answer what they take to be obligatory questions about why each relation applies the way it can and why some relations are capable of applying differently from the ways others can (Dixon 2019: 68). So the different ways that the relations between and adjacency are capable of applying is explained by positionalists in terms of the different ontological structures attributed to these relations, i.e. their number of roles or positions and the nature of the relation that assigns things to roles or positions. By contrast, anti-positionalists and primitivists deny that such questions about why relations have the capacity to differentially apply need answering at all. As Fine describes his own version of anti-positionalism, “It is a fundamental fact for [the anti-positionalist] that relations are capable of giving rise to a diversity of completions in application to any given relata and there is no explanation of this diversity in terms of a difference in the way the completions are formed from the relation and its relata” (Fine 2000: 19).