Why is explaining the ability to infer according to logical rules as conceptual dispositions not satisfactory?

In his famous article “What the Tortoise Said to Achilles”, Carroll explained how adding logical rules as propositions to an argument causes an infinite regress in the inference and makes the conclusion far from reach. As a solution, some logicians propose to consider logic as dispositional knowledge. Logical dispositions are potentialities that in presence of certain situations manifest as certain actions. An agent, who is familiar with logic, when facing an argument, reveals their ability and deduce. In defending the dispositional approach, some consider logic as a part of a universal language or as the language of thought; in this way knowing logic like knowing a language is considered as having some dispositions. In this paper, we show logic is not part of the universal language, since we could have several and different logics. Although the dispositional approach could prevent Carroll’s regress, it cannot explain some basic features of logic such as its apriority. Dispositions are neither a priori nor a posteriori, but logic is always considered as an archetype of apriority. Also, we can explain actions in accordance with logical rules as actions that are motivated by propositional knowledge we have; logic provides reason to act logically. Therefore, in presence of better explanations for the propositional approach and some disadvantages of the dispositional approach, the latter seems unsatisfactory.