 Recently, Fitelson (2017) has proposed a confirmation-theoretic explanation of Simpson’s Paradox. His analysis relies on identifying confirmation with increasing the (subjective) probability of a proposition. Statements of the form “evidence \(\r{E}\) confirms hypothesis \(\r{H}\)” are, however, usually evaluated with respect to background knowledge K, and this can lead to ambiguities. In particular, Fitelson distinguishes between the suppositional and conjunctive readings of a confirmation statement. In our running example, these statements would be as follows: