 Figure 2: In this figure, as in  Figure 1,  we plot the various possible credence functions defined on a proposition Heads and its negation Tails in the unit square. The diagonal line contains all and only the probability functions. Let \(c^*\) be your credence function: that is, it assigns 0.7 to Heads and 0.6 to Tails. So it violates Probabilism. The credence functions that lie between the two arcs are all and only the credence functions that accuracy dominate \(c^*\). The credence functions on the dashed line are all and only the credence functions that match your evidence that the chance of Heads is 0.7. Notice that the dashed line does not overlap with the set of credence functions that accuracy dominate yours at any point. This is the crucial fact on which Easwaran and Fitelson’s objection rests. 