Logical knowledge has often been considered exceptional, either because it is a priori, foundational, or simply self-evident. Against this, anti-exceptionalists argue that logical knowledge is acquired in pretty much the same ways as knowledge in the sciences. Theory-choice in logic is continuous with theory-choice in other areas, although the source and type of evidence might differ. Ultimately, knowledge of logical laws is the result of a broadly abductive methodology. Here I investigate what such an epistemology of logic will mean for the debate between the logical monist and the logical pluralist. If theory-choice in logic is indeed closely related to theory-choice in the sciences, does that leave room for the pluralist thesis that there is more than one correct logic? I argue that abductivism might support a form of local pluralism, but that global pluralism is problematic.