 Lasonen-Aarnio begins with the observation that respecting higher-order evidence can compel a rational agent to violate genuine epistemic rules. (This is very similar to the idea presented in the introduction: that after Aisha receives her higher-order evidence, her total evidence still supports G.) Since this thought is common to much of the higher-order evidence literature, it will be worth spelling out in detail the reasoning behind it. One simple way to make the thought plausible is to focus on a case of entailment—so, let’s suppose Aisha’s first-order evidence entails G. Then we can argue as follows: