 But while it is overwhelmingly plausible that \(B\) can only serve as the ontological ground of \(A\) because \(B\) itself exists, or is the way it is, it is not forced on us to hold that \(r_2\) can only be a reason for \(r_1\) because \(r_2\) is itself justified, and this is why Klein’s response to the epistemic regress is available. It need be no part of the explanation for why \(r_2\) is a reason for \(r_1\) that \(r_2\) itself be justified. As Klein says, the entirety of the explanation for why \(r_2\) is a reason for \(r_1\) might be simply that the objective probability of \(r_1\) given \(r_2\) is sufficiently high. That fact does not involve \(r_2\) being justified. Klein thinks that \(r_2\) must be justified if \(r_1\) is, but that need not be any part of why \(r_2\) is a reason for \(r_1\), and thus there is no pressure to hold that the justification of \(r_1\) by \(r_2\) is dependent on, or inherited by, the justification of \(r_2\) by \(r_3\), and so on. So while there is indeed an infinite sequence of propositions, each of which is a reason for the previous one on the list, at no stage is the fact that one proposition is a reason for another hostage to the fact that any other proposition is a reason for another. And so arguably, nothing remains unexplained: there can be a good explanation not only for why each particular proposition is justified (\(r_5\) is justified by \(r_6\), etc.), but also for why there are any justified propositions in the first place (there are propositions that raise the objective probability of others,  e.g.).[13]