Passage Summary: Someone defined knowledge as a 'true belief from a reliable source.' Critics used 'psychic powers' as a counter-example, but the author argues that we only reject psychics because we don't think they're reliable, not because the definition is bad.

Conclusion: The definition of knowledge as a true belief formed by a reliable process is correct despite the clairvoyance objection.

Reasoning: The reason people reject clairvoyance as knowledge is not because the definition is flawed, but because they do not actually believe clairvoyance is a reliable process.

Analysis: The author defends a general definition by reinterpreting the critics' counter-example to show it doesn't actually apply. Instead of accepting the counter-example as a flaw in the definition, the author argues the example actually reinforces the definition once our underlying skepticism is revealed. You are looking for a description of a strategy where an apparent exception is shown to be consistent with the rule being attacked. The author effectively says, 'The rule is fine; your example just doesn't meet the rule's criteria.'