Explanations of the difference between prohibitive balancing and permissive balancing

Balanced epistemic reasons for beliefs that p and ¬p combine towards a prohibition on either belief while balanced reasons for two incompatible actions combine to permit either action. This “combinatorial contrast” needs explaining. After showing that a straightforward explanation is inadequate, I consider various accounts for this contrast. Stephanie Leary’s explanation is insufficient for prohibitive balancing of epistemic reasons due to its lack of reasons for suspension. John Brunero’s explanation incorporates reasons for suspension but cannot accommodate reasons against suspension. A general point, which applies to any explanatory attempt that focuses on prohibitive balancing, is that a successful explanation for prohibitive balancing needs reasons for suspension that are both strong enough and weak enough to give correct verdicts. Tucker’s explanation is also prone to doubts from this general requirement, as well as other problems, including those similar to those found in the previous two explanations.