Does the Reasoning View Over-Generate Reasons to Suspend?

On the Reasoning View, normative reasons are the premises of good patterns of reasoning. Applied to suspension of judgment, the view faces an objection due to Eva Schmidt: When two equally reliable sources conflict, the good reasoning that ends in suspension takes the evidence for p among its premises, so the view appears to count that evidence as a reason to suspend on p, which seems absurd. I argue that the Reasoning View survives this objection. Given a knowledge-based standard for the fittingness of suspension and the defeasibility internal to the view, one consideration can favor belief in one situation and suspension in another, so the over-generation Schmidt describes is just the context-relativity of favoring.