Several contextualists (e.g., Cohen 1988, 1998; Lewis 1996; Neta 2002; Rieber 1998) have suggested that we can resolve the lottery paradox by means of the same device(s) used to explain both skeptical paradoxes and seeming inconsistencies among everyday “knowledge” attributions:[13] in brief, we are reluctant to attribute “knowledge” to the subject in the lottery case just because the possibility of error has been made salient; but if we are, instead, focusing on the vast improbability of his ticket’s being the winner, that he does “know” that he will lose can seem like the right thing to say; and, as above, EC enables us regard both of the relevant claims as expressing truths, albeit in different contexts.