 Further challenges to the interplay of logic and probabilistic reasoning abound. By way of conclusion, here is a dimension that seems hard to capture in purely qualitative logical terms. A characteristic feature of game- and decision-theoretic reasoning is that beliefs and preferences are entangled in various ways (Liu 2011). For instance, the crucial notion of expected utility entangles probability, representing beliefs, with utilities, standing for preferences. Players faced with probabilistic uncertainty about the opponent’s present and future actions are often advised to maximize expected utility (von Neumann &amp; Morgenstern 1944; Savage 1954). Hence, even if one has found qualitative counterparts for probabilistic belief and cardinal utility separately, entanglement poses the additional difficulty of merging these two qualitative analyses in a way that matches what the quantitative side achieves easily by forming some arithmetical combination of both components.