Some arguments against restricted composition—the view that some but not all pluralities compose a whole—are based on the idea that a feature that cuts reality at the joints, such as composition, cannot be vague, and that if composition is restricted, one can have a continuous series of cases from a case of composition to a case of having lack of composition.
But now suppose I owe you ten dollars. Then there is a continuous series of cases where the amount I pay you ranges from zero to $20. The properties wrong, right and supererogatory cut nature at the joints. But as my payment moves from $9.99 to $10.00, it switches from wrong to right, and as it moves from $10.01, it switches from merely right to supererogatory. So, one can have a case where the presence of joint-cutting features depends on something that varies continuously. And there is no vagueness: if I pay less than $10, I definitely wrong you; if I pay $10 or more, I definitely do right.
