 Still another kind of counterexample to SCA, discussed by Smith (1977), Prior, Pargetter &amp; Jackson (1982), Lewis (1997), and Armstrong (1997), involves an interfering factor in virtue of which \(x\) mimics the manifestation of disposition \(D\) although it does not possess \(D\). When a styrofoam dish is struck, it makes a distinctive sound. The Hater of Styrofoam is within earshot of it. What if it were struck? The Hater of Styrofoam would hear the distinctive sound and tear the styrofoam dish apart. It seems evident that the dish is not disposed to break when struck. If struck, however, it would break due to the interference of the Hater of Styrofoam, which goes against SCA. Here the Hater of Styrofoam is called a mimicker of the disposition to break when struck, meaning that it makes it the case that the dish, which does not have the disposition, mimics its manifestation. (This example is due to Lewis 1997.)