What are some good arguments against taking plural logic, a slight extension of first order logic with plural quantification as a foundational logic?
Alternatively, what are some resources that discuss plural logic and take a position against it?
I've been reading about plural quantification recently, but have mostly been treating it as a simple alternative set theory or type theory with interesting technical details such as the non-existence of empty collections.
The SEP article in question and the Wikipedia article, which has similar content, spends a lot of time talking about the benefits of plural quantification mostly by appealing to plural morphology in languages such as English and overcoming potential objections to baking in set theory by showing a semantics that is similar to the semantics of first-order logic, but has an additional relation R that is the extension of the elementhood relation. The SEP article also mentions some results like the equi-interpretability of monadic second order logic and plural logic as justification for the ontological innocence of plural logic.
I can think of some arguments off the top of my head for why plural logic is a bad framework to commit to, or at least an unintuitive one. One of them comes from the example sentence given in the very start of the SEP article has unclear truth conditions.
(2) There are some apples on the table.
(2) might be true or might be false when there's exactly one apple on the table. English speakers will probably consider things like how much knowledge the speaker is likely to have about the number of apples on the table when interpreting this sentence and considering which situations are permitted or ruled out.
We can resolve this problem by requiring collections to be nonempty or requiring them to be nonempty and non-singular, but making the decision the same way for every plural locution in all contexts seems to sever the link with natural language.
This is an example of a counterargument against plural logic that isn't very original. I'm interested in more arguments like it or sources containing such arguments.