 Gallow (2019) calls attention to the fact that the Rule of Conditionalization as stated in the form above does not depend upon the possible evidential propositions that may be learned, but only the prior credences and what is actually learned.  Constructing a Dutch Strategy against a non-conditionalizer requires having a rule that specifies how they will update their credences given the alternative possible evidence that they might have learned.  So, at most the Dutch Strategy Argument defends the Rule of Conditionalization in an appropriate learning scenario that specifies the possible evidence that may be obtained.  Gallow also emphasizes that the propositions in the learning scenario must form a partition, as some presentations explicitly assume.  If they do not, that is some of the \(E_i\) overlap, he shows that Dutch Strategies are possible against conditionalizers. For instance, where \(E_1\) and \(E_2\) are the evidential propositions that may be learned and they overlap, learning either will raise the conditionalizer's credence in their conjunction.  A Dutch Strategy can be constructed that takes advantage of the difference between the prior credence for the conjunction and the foreseeable rise in the conjunction upon either learning \(E_1\) or learning \(E_2\). Gallow suggests that learning scenarios may exist in which the possible evidence fails to form a partition, and that evidence can be acquired outside of any learning scenario at all. 