 On PROP, ‘\(x\) is more disposed to \(M\) in \(C\) than \(y\)’ means that \(x\) would \(M\) in a greater proportion of \(C\)-cases than \(y\). PROP thus seems to provide an account of comparative disposition ascriptions. Further, Manley &amp; Wasserman hold that PROP has no difficulty handling some apparent counterexamples to the conditional analyses of dispositions on offer. A fragile glass wouldn’t break in the presence of finks or maskers. PROP, however, rules correctly that it is disposed to break when struck. That is because the glass would still break in a suitable proportion of \(C\)-cases where it is struck. On the other hand, a non-fragile steel bar would break in the presence of reverse-finks or mimicker. Yet again, PROP entails correctly that it is not disposed to break when struck. That is because the steel bar wouldn’t break in a suitable proportion of \(C\)-cases where it is struck.