Logical pluralism is the view that there is more than one correct logic. Much of the recent work on logical pluralism is centred on the pluralist proposal developed and defended by Jc Beall and Greg Restall. In this talk, my aim is twofold. First, I argue that Beall and Restall’s proposal is best understood as the conjunction of three, jointly incompatible, theses: a metaphysical thesis, a conceptual thesis, and a linguistic thesis. Second, I propose a solution to this tension and present three arguments for why the linguistic thesis must be abandoned.