 More generally, this reductionist argument assumes that if an internal relation \(R\) isn’t required to perform the role of determining that \(R\) holds between the things it relates, because that role has already been discharged by the intrinsic characteristics of the things it relates, then \(R\) doesn’t exist at all or doesn’t constitute “an addition to the world’s furniture” (Armstrong 1997: 87). But from the fact that \(R\) doesn’t fulfill one role it doesn’t follow that it isn’t required to fulfill another. It doesn’t follow because there may still be other good reasons for us to believe that internal relations exist, or constitute “an addition to the world’s furniture”.