 To get a sense of this distinction, consider how we might evaluate an archer’s shot, aimed at a target. Even if this target was a poor target to have initially chosen as the object of one’s archery attempt from a practical point of view (perhaps hitting it will have bad ethical consequences, perhaps the target is too easy to be worthwhile), such a fact would be irrelevant to whether we should evaluate the shot as accurate when it in fact hits the target as intended, and for that matter, whether the shot is competent (i.e., if it issues from a skill to reliably enough hit the target in appropriate conditions), or apt (i.e., if it is accurate because competent), or fully apt (in that it aptness is attained aptly, and not just by accident or luck. In this respect, the success, competence, and aptness of a shot, as well as its full aptness, can all be appreciated as “sealed off” from many considerations—which speak well or poorly of the archer—that concern how the archer came to select that particular shot, and how else she has conducted herself in doing so. Some of the wisdom of shot selection is itself gnoseological, as when it bears importantly on whether the risk of failure it too high, the assured reliability sufficient. After all, these will bear on whether the shot will be not only apt but also fully apt, as not only its accuracy but also its aptness is aptly attained. Even so, we do care about wise rather than foolish shot selection in evaluating archery more holistically, where we import considerations that go beyond a focus on accuracy or aptness. We might admire an archer for choosing well, from a practical point of view, what targets to attempt and which to forbear from attempting, and for her resilience in continuing to pursue a worthy aim, despite obstacles.