Full Idea
By Quine's test of ontological commitment, if some children are sitting in a circle, no individual child can sit in a circle, so a singular paraphrase will have us committed to a 'group' of children.
Clarification
See Idea 10667 for Quine's test
Gist of Idea
We are committed to a 'group' of children, if they are sitting in a circle
Source
Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 2)
Book Reference
-: 'British Soc for the Philosophy of Science' [-], p.414
A Reaction
Nice of why Quine is committed to the existence of sets. Hossack offers plural quantification as a way of avoiding commitment to sets. But is 'sitting in a circle' a real property (in the Shoemaker sense)? I can sit in a circle without realising it.
Related Idea
Idea 10667 A logically perfect language could express all truths, so all truths must be logically expressible [Quine, by Hossack]