Ceding less ground, Peter Ludlow argues that questions about gradability are too crude a standard by which to judge whether ‘know’ is context-sensitive. Ludlow disagrees with Hawthorne about the prevalence of clarificatory devices for ‘know’ and argues that there is good reason to think its semantics includes placeholder(s) for variable standards. Like DeRose (2005), Ludlow casts EC as a piece of ‘ordinary language’ philosophy, and in that spirit he presents the results of Google searches in which clauses like, “…by objective standards”, “…with some certainty”, “…doggone well…”, and so on, accompany uses of ‘know’. The latter are more data to be mulled over in considering possible linguistic bases for EC. In general, from the fact that different standards are employed, even explicitly adverted to, in making some evaluative judgments in different domains, it does not immediately follow that a contextualistic semantics for the relevant terms is correct (Conee 2014, 64). Some standards that we employ in making a statement, for example, are understood to be merely guidelines or rule of thumb, not direct applications of the statement’s truth conditions. Questions about the proper handling of such data as Ludlow cites—e.g., whether the relevant utterances involve the making-explicit of context-variable standards for “knowledge”, or the conveying of information over and above that encoded in the word itself—arise as much here as with the considerations initially used to motivate EC.