 Suppose s learns evidence E6. On ordinary background information (i) E6 justifies P6 for s, (ii) s knows that P6 entails Q6, and E6 also justifies Q6 for s. It seems false, however, that Q6 is justified for s in virtue of the satisfaction of (i) and (ii). Quite the reverse, Q6 seems justified for s by E6 independently the satisfaction of (i) and (ii). This is so because in the (imagined) actual scenario it seems true that s would still possess a justification for Q6 based on E6 even if E6 did not justify P6 for s. Suppose in fact s had noticed that the referee’s assistant raised her flag to signal Jones’s off-side. Against this altered background information, E6 would no longer justify P6 for s but it would still justify Q6 for s. Thus Soccer is non-transmissive of the justification depending on E6. In general, no argument instantiating indirectness in relation to some evidence will be transmissive of justification based on that evidence.