Mereological universalism holds that any collection of objects composes a further object—your nose and the Eiffel Tower compose a scattered object. This seems odd but avoids arbitrary lines between what composes and what doesn't. Mereological nihilism holds nothing ever composes—there are only simples (partless fundamental entities) arranged table-wise, chair-wise, etc. Moderate positions try to articulate principled composition restrictions, but face challenges explaining what makes some combinations object-forming while others aren't.
It can be inferred from the text that
mereological universalism posits that nothing ever composes
there are no chairs or tables according to universalism
moderate positions in metaphysics face no special explanatory burdens
in metaphysics, avoiding arbitrary stipulations may come at the cost of counterintuitive commitments
Correct Answer: D
Choice D is the best answer. Universalism avoids arbitrary lines but accepts odd objects.
- Context clues: Universalism "avoids arbitrary lines" but "seems odd" (nose + Eiffel Tower).
- Meaning: Non-arbitrariness is purchased by counterintuitive commitments.
- Verify: The trade-off between principled criteria and intuitive results is explicit.
💡 Strategy: When avoiding one problem creates another, infer trade-offs between theoretical virtues.
Choice A is incorrect because universalism says any collection composes; nihilism says nothing does. Choice B is incorrect because universalism has more objects, not fewer. Choice C is incorrect because moderate positions "face challenges explaining" composition restrictions.