Another version of EC that features explanatory relations and claims is John Greco’s (2003, 2008, 2009). At the heart of Greco’s view is a certain picture of knowledge—that it is creditable true belief; when one knows, one believes the truth as a result of one’s own efforts and abilities. But when is the attainment of a true belief genuinely creditable to the agent? It is here that contextual matters enter in. For, in general, there can be different—though, importantly, non-competing—accounts of “the cause” of a given thing, event or phenomenon. And now we have an argument for EC: attributing “knowledge” involves giving credit; credit attributions involve a kind of causal explanation; but causal explanations require a contextualist semantics; so “knowledge” attributions require a contextualist semantics too (2009, 107).