Ruth Chang's 'on a par' relation presupposes that small improvements to one item would not make it better than the other, but this 'bi-directionality' condition can be accommodated by a vague or indeterminate equality relation without positing a fourth value relation.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

'On a par' relation(the main concept being discussed): A way of comparing two things where neither one is better than the other, but they're also not exactly equal—they're just incomparable in a meaningful way.
Bi-directionality condition(a specific requirement being discussed about comparisons): A requirement that a relationship works the same way in both directions—if A relates to B in some way, then B relates to A in exactly the same way.
Fourth value relation(what the statement argues we don't need to invent): A completely separate type of relationship between things, beyond 'better than,' 'worse than,' and 'equal to'—hypothetically a fourth category.
Presupposes(as describing what Plantinga's argument takes for granted): Assumes something to be true without proving it—like how an argument might presuppose that logic works, without first arguing that logic is valid.

Based on where you are in your exploration