  This neo-Pyrrhonian position can be explained in terms of contrast classes, which should be familiar from shopping: Are jumbo shrimp large? An answer of “Yes” or “No” would be too simple. Jumbo shrimp are large for shrimp, but they are not large for edible crustaceans. Analogously, someone can be justified in believing a claim out of one contrast class, even if the same person is not justified in believing the same claim out of a different contrast class. For example, suppose a father sees an animal in a zoo and believes it to be a zebra. If the father has adequate evidence that the animal is not a lion or a horse, then the father can be justified in believing that it is a zebra out of the contrast class {lion, horse, zebra}. Nonetheless, the father still might not have any evidence that the animal is not a mule painted to look just like a zebra. Then the father is not justified in believing that the animal is a zebra out of the contrast class {lion, horse, zebra, painted mule}.