 Given suitable assumptions, the probabilities of these alternatives will fall below the probability of \(A\wedge B\) provided \(A\) and \(B\), individually, are supported by the evidence. So whenever the standard of proof is met for individual claims \(A\) and \(B\), the standard should also be met for the composite claim \(A \wedge B\). Kaplow (2014) advances a similar argument. Urbaniak (2019) points out that Cheng splits the defense hypothesis into three sub-cases, \(A\wedge \neg B\), \(\neg A \wedge B\), and \(\neg A \wedge \neg B\), but does not consider the alternative \(\neg (A \wedge B)\). The probability of \(\neg (A \wedge B)\) may actually exceed that of \(A\wedge B\). If \(\neg (A \wedge B)\) is the alternative hypothesis, the standard might not be met for the composite claim \(A \wedge B\), even when the standard is met for individual claims \(A\) and \(B\) (for another critique of Cheng’s approach, see Allen &amp; Stein 2013).