 This section discusses two strategies which acknowledge the remaining puzzle and attempt to solve it. One, defended most prominently by David Christensen, holds that higher-order evidence gives rise to epistemic dilemmas, where there is no fully rational response available (though there may be a rationally best response). So Aisha is both required to believe G and to doubt G, and she is just unfortunately unable to do both. Another family of responses, here called “two-norm views”, aim to separate different modes of epistemic evaluation, and argue that Aisha’s conflicting requirements somehow issue from different normative realms. The common goal of all these strategies is to explain the apparent conflict of norms in cases like Hypoxia, without denying the legitimacy of any of these conflicting norms.