 Although the original paradox pertains to posterior probabilities of liability, Dawid argues that the paradox does not arise for likelihood ratios. Garbolino (2014) also recommends switching to likelihood ratios. Yet the conjunction paradox still arises for likelihood ratios when the items of evidence, say \(a\) and \(b\), are assessed relative to a composite hypothesis, say \(A \wedge B\). Suppose \(a\) and \(b\) provide positive support for \(A\) and \(B\), respectively. Urbaniak (2019) shows that the combined likelihood ratio