[tag=DT | lemma=of] [tag=NNS] [□=□]
[tag=DT | lemma=of] [tag=NNS] [tag=□]
[tag=DT | lemma=of] [tag=NNS] [lemma=□]
These plants stand well above the water , bearing their buds , unfurling leaves , flowers , and seed pods all at the same time . This signifies that all attributes have been found . The Vauxhall Gay Village isn ’ t really a village at all , more a collection of clubs where gay men can party all weekend if they want to , provided the drugs don ’ t bring them down first.It wasn ’ t always thus . Those are so far-fetched , the Epistemist could claim , that even if someone advancing those alternatives happens to believe them , there appears to be no reason why one should have to rise to the bait and eliminate those alternatives prior to being justified in believing that the animals are zebras . On the other hand , the Epistemist could agree that in Dretske 's zebra-in-the zoo case , if there really were some evidence , however slight , for the claim that the animals are painted mules , then Mr. Stringent might be able to legitimately require that S rule out that possibility prior to being justified in believing that the animals are zebras . Overall , the facilities don ’ t quite match the breathtakingly grand and spacious turquoise-wallpapered Ladies at the Savoy , and on our visit we couldn ’ t see the sorts of useful bits and bobs offered at the Ritz , which has a table of perfumes , sewing kit , combs and such . " The crucial thing to note about this proposed counterexample is that it works only if the Closure Principle entails that the very same source of evidence that justifies S in believing that the animals are zebras must justify S in believing that they are not cleverly disguised mules . In other words , Dretske grants that S has ( non-overridden ) grounds that make it sufficiently likely that the animals are zebras , but he holds that S does not have ( non-overridden ) grounds making it sufficiently likely that the animals are not cleverly disguised mules because S 's evidence for the former has been " effectively neutralized . Now , in response one could claim that once the question of whether the animals are disguised mules has been raised , the evidence is " effectively neutralized " for both the former and the latter , and S is no longer justified in believing that the animals are zebras .