Abstract: Choice-based conceptions of substantive responsibility face a number of powerful counterexamples.In order to avoid some of these counterexamples, it is widely claimed that agents are substantively responsible for disadvantage arising from their choices only when the option set from which they chose satisfied a reasonability criterion.I examine three possible justifications for a reasonability criterion: an agent-responsibility-based motivation, a voluntariness-based motivation, and what I call a 'denied-claim'-based motivation.In each case, I argue that the putative motivation cannot in fact justify a reasonability condition.I end with some comments on what this result means for choice-based conceptions of substantive responsibility.