There are some knowledge claims (/denials) which, though they concern everyday matters, can seem to threaten skeptical consequences. As we saw, the perhaps-natural denial of knowledge to Smith, in the preceding example, is like this. Another example involves the lottery paradox. Thus, while the probability of holding the winning ticket in a fair lottery may be extremely small (assuming there are many tickets and only one winner), many balk at crediting any given ticket-holder with knowledge that their ticket is not the winner. But why should that be if, as fallibilism has it, one does not need evidence that guarantees the truth of a belief in order to know?