We have lots of knowledge. That much seems clear. But, we might wonder, what does it take to have knowledge? What exactly are the conditions under which a subject S knows a proposition p? One answer that has been proposed in response to that question is the so-called Traditional Analysis of Knowledge. In the first part of your paper, discuss the Traditional Analysis of Knowledge. Explain what that view says; why it has seemed plausible to people, at least at first; and why Gettier thinks that it is, ultimately, mistaken. Say whether you think Gettier’s argument against the Traditional Analysis of Knoweldge is sound, and why or why not. Another answer that has been proposed in response to question of what it takes to have knowledge is what Ichikawa and Steup refer to as the No False Lemmas analysis of knowledge. In the second part of your paper, discuss the No False Lemmas analysis of knowledge. Explain what that view says; why it has seemed plausible to people, at least at first; and why Ichikawa and Steup think that it is, ultimately, mistaken. Say whether you think their argument against the No False Lemmas analysis is sound, and why or why not. Your paper should be approximately 1000 words in total.