 Both the response to the coherentist and the response to the evidential proportionalist leave the accuracy argument for Probabilism in a strange position. The argument for, or defence of, one component of its first premise, namely,  Credal Veritism  appeals to an argument of which it is a premise! In fact, this isn’t problematic. The credal veritist and her opponent might agree that the argument at least establishes a conditional: if credal veritism is true, then probabilism is true. You need not accept credal veritism to accept that conditional. And it is that conditional to which the credal veritist appeals in defending her position against the coherentist and the evidential proportionalist. Having successfully defended credal veritism in this way, she can then appeal to its truth to derive Probabilism.