The standard definition of knowledge is justified true belief.

The lamb case shows that it is possible to have a justified true belief in some proposition
without possessing true knowledge of that proposition. In the lamb case, Mrs. Lambs
conclusion is deduced from a false justified belief, and the conclusion drawn just so
happens to be true. However, Mrs. Lambs first premise for drawing this conclusion is not
true, as the first premise is that Linus owns a Lamborghini, she is in fact being
deceived, causing her justification to still be justification, but deteriorated justification.
However from this deception, she concludes that at least one of my students owns a
Lamborghini. This belief is justified, and it is true as the modest girl in the back owns
one, but her justification and reasoning for drawing this conclusion turns out to be false.
Therefore, we can not say that Mrs. Lamb had knowledge of her justified true belief as
her conclusion was based on a false premise. The conclusion just coincidentally happened
to be true. Lamb does not know at least one of her students owns a Lamborghini a she
does not have knowledge of the true justification behind her conclusion, which would be
observing the girl in the back who actually does own a Lamborghini. Since Mrs. Lamb
however could not tell she was being deceived, as we can not in many cases, this presents
a problem for the justified true belief definition of knowledge. One may also have to
possess genuine knowledge of the cause for which their belief is based on. In this lamb
example, does Mrs. Lamb know why and how Linus owns the Lamborghini, or is she just
making the assumption that since she sees him with it, he must have possession of it? If
so, she is leaving much room for deception, as is the case in this example.
The sheep case is again very similar to the lamb case. Shep makes the true conclusion
that there is a lamb in the field based on deception, which deteriorates the justification,
and a false premise. Shep concludes that there is a lamb in the field due to the fact that he
sees a dog dressed as a lamb, thinking that this is the lamb that is in the field. So his first
premise is that this thing I am seeing right now is a lamb. However, this is false, as
what he sees is merely a dog dressed as a lamb. There IS however a lamb in this field,
directly behind the dog. So, Sheps justified false conclusion that this thing in front of
me in a lamb leads him to the justified true belief that there is at least one sheep in this
field which again just so happens to be true. Shep does not know there is a sheep in this
field as he does not have knowledge of the true sheep that actually is in the field, merely
of the dog dressed to look like one. This again presents a problem for the justified true
belief definition. . It is because of the component of luck and things just so happening to
turn out true that these cases demonstrate disingenuous knowledge.
In constructing Gettier cases, we first begin with a justified false belief.
Next, we have a person deduce something that turns out to be true from this original false
belief, and have them believe this true deduction based on this false belief. The overall
deduction will be justified and true, but the person will not have genuine knowledge of
the thing they have deduced as it is based on a false premise and it just so turns out that
they have gotten lucky that their conclusion is true.
The no false belief solution adds the constraint onto knowledge that your belief in a
certain proposition must be undoubtedly based on no falsehood, essentially meaning that

your justification must be true. A few problems with this attempted solution is that it can
not seem to handle variations of Gettier problems (such as lucky lamb) and it seems to
give incorrect verdicts on certain cases where falsehood is present, but from this
falsehood we still may have knowledge of a certain conclusion. For instance, when we
see something, and we conclude that it definitely is not one color because it appears to us
to be another color. However, the color it appears to us actually turns out to be false. We
can still say it is definitely not this one color that we know of, but it is based on our false
belief of it being a different color than it actually is.
The simple defeasibility theory adds that justification may not be defeated, meaning that
know combination of circumstances may render ones justification false or faulty.
However, the problem with this theory is that it seems to rule out far too much, such as
circumstances that may be outside the scope of ones immediate capacity for justification.