Is the conjunction fallacy tied to probabilistic confirmation?

Crupi, Fitelson, and Tentori (CFT, forthcoming) offer three conditions that constitute an attempted confirmation-theoretic explanation of the conjunction fallacy. I present experimental results to show that CFT’s conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient for the fallacy. There exist cases that do not meet their three conditions in which subjects still tend to commit the fallacy. Also, there exist cases that meet all three of CFT’s conditions in which subjects do not tend to commit the fallacy. In light of these experiments, CFT’s account of the conjunction fallacy cannot be right as it stands.