At times, however, the underlying assumption is controversial or insufficient.
Finally, we will treat the expressions 'x is composed of the ys', 'x is a sum of the ys', and, 'x is a fusion of the ys' as meaning 'each of the ys is a part of x and each part of x overlaps at least one of the ys.' All these assumptions are controversial.
This assumption is more controversial (Vranas 2004).
Given the empirical evidence, this assumption is not controversial in the DB pension system.
Evaluating this assumption is rather controversial.
(Perhaps this response assumes that a successful machine participant in the imitation game will need to be equipped with sensors, etc. However, as we noted above, this assumption is not terribly controversial. A plausible conversationalist has to keep up to date with goings-on in the world).
But this assumption is (in both its parts) highly controversial, and it may be possible for the identity theorist simply to deny it.
Even in the case of countable subsets, if the 'process' is actually to come to a conclusion, the 'being' presupposed would presumably have to be able to distinguish a (countably) infinite, discrete sequence of instants within a finite time, and this assumption is, as is well-known, a notoriously controversial one.
While this assumption is very intuitive, and widely held, it is nevertheless controversial in some quarters.
This assumption is wrong.
