 Defenders of the Level-Splitting view include Lasonen-Aarnio (2014), Coates (2012), Weatherson (ms–see Other Internet Resources), Williamson (2014), and Wedgwood (2012). The obvious advantage is that this view straightforwardly takes all of Aisha’s evidence into account: her evidence about G affects her beliefs about G, and her evidence about her epistemic situation affects her beliefs about her epistemic situation. An obvious upshot of this view is that epistemic akrasia can be rational: in particular, in Hypoxia, Aisha should end up believing G, while also believing that her evidence likely doesn’t support G.