 Consider the following case, due to Vogel (2000): Roxanne is a driver who believes whatever her gas gauge says about the state of her fuel tank, although she has no antecedent reasons to believe it is reliable. So Roxanne often looks at the gauge and arrives at conjunctive beliefs like the following: On this occasion the gauge reads “Full” &amp; the tank is full. Now, the perceptual process by which she arrives at the belief that the gauge reads “Full” is reliable, and so is the process by which she arrives at the belief that the tank is full (given that the gauge functions reliably). According to reliabilism, therefore, her belief in the indicated conjunction should be justified. Now Roxanne deduces the proposition, On this occasion, the gauge is reporting accurately. From multiple instances of this reasoning, she induces the further conclusion: The gauge is generally reliable. Finally, with a little more deduction she concludes she is justified in believing that her gas tank is full. Since deduction and induction are reliable processes, Roxanne must also be justified in believing that her gas gauge is full. But is this verdict plausible? Definitely not, says Vogel, because such bootstrapping amounts to a vicious form of epistemic circularity.