 But Manley &amp; Wasserman’s analysis is not without difficulties. The trouble is that it is extremely difficult to make sense of talk of proportions of \(C\)-cases, especially given that very diverse factors are supposed to affect the weights of given \(C\)-cases: closeness of them to actuality, contextual variations of their weights, and so on. In addition, Manley &amp; Wasserman’s account of comparative disposition ascriptions requires a non-arbitrary standard for comparing the sizes of infinite sets of \(C\)-cases despite most of them being of the same cardinality. But it looks to be a tremendous task to set up such a standard, let alone, to do so in a way that is epistemically accessible to those of us who possess the dispositional concepts at issue.