In this paper we consider whether the background logic problem actually presents a serious challenge for anti-exceptionalists about logic. We argue that logical theorizing does not depend upon a background logic to get started, but merely on the defeasible assumption that the specific arguments offered are good ones. These assumptions are compatible with multiple explanations of the goodness of these arguments, including accounts on which they are not formally valid but materially justified. Furthermore, as in other areas of science, the success of the general research program is compatible with the rejection of initial characterizations of the data—in this case initial claims about the goodness of specific arguments—as well as rejections of initial hypotheses about both the logical form of those specific arguments and the explanation of their goodness.