  Problems arise when contexts cross. Consider a philosophy student who says that the doctor on the ethics committee is not justified in believing the moral claim. Is the student’s contrast class (with moral nihilism) or the doctor’s contrast class (without moral nihilism) really relevant to the student’s judgment about the doctor’s belief? And what if the doctor says that the student really is justified while in the philosophy class? When epistemic assessments cross contexts in such ways, sometimes the believer’s context seems relevant, but sometimes the assessor’s context seems relevant, so it is hard to see any basis for claiming that either context or either contrast class really is the relevant one for assessing whether the believer really is justified (without qualification).