The objection concerning persistence of accidents rests on distinct premises:
1. The persistence of an accident is treated as something additional to its initial existence.
2. An accident cannot subsist independently of its subject or as an accident inhering in another accident.
Together these premises create difficulties for claiming that numerically the same power survives across two moments. The strength of the argument depends on those premises; someone who rejects them requires a differently formulated proof.
Persistence, renewal, and inherence should not be treated as vague synonyms. Each indicates a particular ontological relation in this classical debate.