I argue that epistemic contextualism, as conceived by Lewis and DeRose, cannot accommodate knowledge-ascribing behavior in contexts where expert counsel is sought. Narrowly focusing on the subject's epistemic position with respect to p in ∼p possibilities yields the wrong verdict in such cases. To account for our judgments, I propose that contextualists should look to virtue responsibilism, which founds epistemic evaluation both on the mastery of relevant underlying principles and their explicit and implicit application. Such assessment is not measured by S's ability to rule out relevant alternatives or track the truth of p, and for this reason, is not captured by either version of contextualism.