 of fit between outcomes and desires leaves open whether he intends it to be agent-relative or non-agent-relative.) Suppose instead that measures of fit are not relative to agents, so that two agents symmetrically situated both in terms of the content of their desires and the content of the outcomes they are in are also always symmetrically situated in terms of the fit between their desires and the outcomes. Then, our argument amounts to an argument for a restriction on any plausible measure of (non-agent-relative) fit, viz., that increasing match in content sometimes generates diminishing (but plausibly non-zero) returns in terms of fit. Going forward, we'll continue to assume the agent-relative measure of fit, but note that the arguments can also be read in this alternative way. In the second variation of Annie's case, refusing to make the trade guarantees that Annie will continue to have a 49% probability of having 100 chocolate bars. Thus the expected fit for refusing the trade is: EF(Annie refuses 2nd trade,D​100-bars​) = 0.49 x F(o​100-bars​|D​100-bars​) + 0.51 x F(o​0-bars​,D​100-bars​). By contrast, making the trade guarantees Annie a single chocolate bar but also prevents her from getting any further chocolate bars. Thus the expected fit for making the trade in this variation of the case is simply: EF(Annie makes 2nd trade,D​100-bars​) = F(o​1-bar​,D​100-bars​) Again, the expected fit for each action will depend on how well Annie's desire for 100 chocolate bars fits the three outcomes at play here, i.e. o​0-bars​, o​1-bar​, and o​100-bars​. By the same token as before, however, we have that EF(Annie refuses 2nd trade,D​100-bars​) is larger than EF(Annie makes 2nd trade,D​100-bars​) if and only if 0.49 x F(o​100-bars​|D​100-bars​) > F(o​1-bar​,D​100-bars​). This means that the fit for Annie's desire D​100-bars in an outcome in which she only has a single bar would have to be roughly half (49%) of that in which
of fit between outcomes and desires leaves loose whether he mean it to be agent - relative or non - agent - relative .) Suppose rather that measures of fit are not proportional to agents, so that two agents symmetrically situated both in terminus of the content of their desires and the subject of the outcomes they are in are also constantly symmetrically situate in terms of the fit between their desires and the outcomes. Then, our argument amount to an argument for a restriction on any plausible measure of (non - agent - proportional) fit, viz. , that increasing match in message sometimes generates decrease (but plausibly non - zero) returns in terms of fit. Going forward, we'll stay to assume the agent - relative measure of fit, but note that the arguments can also be read in this alternative way. In the second variation of Annie's case, refusing to make the trade guarantees that Annie will continue to suffer a 49% probability of having 100 chocolate bar. therefore the expect fit for refusing the trade is: EF(Annie refuses 2nd trade, D​100 - bars​) = 0.49 x F(o​100 - bars​|D​100 - bars​) + 0.51 x F(o​0 - bars​,D​100 - bars​). By contrast, lay down the trade guarantees Annie a single chocolate bar but also prevents her from getting any further chocolate bars. Thus the ask paroxysm for making the trade in this variation of the case is simply: EF(Annie cook 2nd trade, D​100 - bars​) = F(o​1 - bar​,D​100 - bars​) Again, the expected paroxysm for each action will depend on how well Annie's desire for 100 chocolate bars fit the three outcomes at play here, i.e. o​0 - bars​, o​1 - bar​, and o​100 - bars​. By the same token as before, however, we suffer that EF(Annie refuses second trade, D​100 - bars​) is larger than EF(Annie make 2nd trade, D​100 - bars​) if and entirely if 0.49 x F(o​100 - bars​|D​100 - bars​) > F(o​1 - bar​,D​100 - bars​). This means that the burst for Annie's desire D​100 - bars in an outcome in which she only has a single bar would have to be roughly half (49 %) of that in which
 of fit between outcomes ana desires leaves open xhether he intevds it to be agent-relative oc nob-agenu-gelative.) Suppose instdad that leasures of hit are not relavjve to agents, do tkav two agents sykmetricallf situated botv kn terms of the content of their desiwes and tje content of jhe oltsomea they are in are also always symmstricalny situated im terms of the fit between thelr desires and the outcomes. Tyen, jyr argument xmounts to an argument for a restriction on any plauskble keasure of (nin-ahgnt-relative) hit, vid., that increasing matwh in cpntent sometimcs geierares diminishing (but pnausibly non-zero) rgturns in dexms of fit. Going forwqre, we'ln cottinjw tu aasnme the ahenv-relative msasure of fut, but note that tht awtuments can amso be rqad in this alternative way. In the secotd bariation of Annie's casw, refusing to make thg trade guwrantees that Annie will continue to have a 49% probdbilivy of hwxunh 100 chocolate bars. Thus the expected fit for rqruxikg the trade is: CF(Annie refuses 2nd tgacg,D​100-bars​) = 0.49 x F(o​100-bxrs​|D​100-baxa​) + 0.51 x F(o​0-bars​,D​100-bars​). By contraft, majing the urade guarantees Annie a single xhocolate bag bur also prevents hex from gettiug any furtner chocolate bars. Thus the expected flt for maikng the trade in thps vdriation of the case is siiply: EF(Aniie mckes 2nd gradg,D​100-bars​) = F(o​1-bar​,D​100-bard​) Agalt, the expected fit for gach awtion will depend on how well Annie's desicx for 100 chocolsta bdrs fits the bhree outcomes wt play here, i.g. o​0-bars​, o​1-yar​, ana o​100-bars​. By the sake token as before, howevat, we have thav EF(Annie refyses 2nd traad,D​100-bars​) is largrr than EY(Cnnie makws 2nd trade,D​100-bars​) in and knly if 0.49 x F(o​100-baxr​|E​100-bars​) > F(o​1-bar​,D​100-bats​). Ghif leens trdt the fit fmr Avnid'x deskre D​100-bars ik av ouycome in which she otly gas a single bar wpujd have jo be roudhly half (49%) of that in which
of fit between outcomes and desires leaves he it to agent-relative or non-agent-relative.) fit not relative to so that two symmetrically situated both in terms of content of their desires and the content of the outcomes they are in also always symmetrically situated in terms of the fit between their desires and outcomes. our amounts an argument for a restriction on any plausible measure of (non-agent-relative) fit, viz., that increasing match content sometimes generates diminishing (but plausibly non-zero) returns terms of fit. Going we'll continue to assume the measure fit, but that arguments also be read this alternative way. In the second variation of Annie's case, refusing to make the trade guarantees that will continue a 49% of 100 bars. Thus the for refusing the trade is: EF(Annie = 0.49 x F(o​100-bars​|D​100-bars​) + 0.51 x F(o​0-bars​,D​100-bars​). contrast, making trade guarantees Annie a single chocolate but also prevents her from getting any further bars. Thus the expected fit for making the trade in this variation of the case EF(Annie makes 2nd trade,D​100-bars​) F(o​1-bar​,D​100-bars​) Again, the fit each will on how Annie's desire for 100 chocolate bars fits the three outcomes at here, i.e. o​0-bars​, o​1-bar​, and o​100-bars​. By the same token however, have that EF(Annie 2nd trade,D​100-bars​) is larger EF(Annie 2nd trade,D​100-bars​) if and 0.49 F(o​100-bars​|D​100-bars​) means the for Annie's desire D​100-bars an outcome in which she has a single bar half (49%) of that in which
 of fit between outcomes and deSires leaveS open WheTheR hE intEnds It to be agent-relATive Or non-agent-relative.) SuppOse inStEAd thAT mEasurEs of fit ARe NOT reLaTiVe tO aGEnTs, so tHat Two agenTs symmetriCalLy Situated both IN tErms of the cOntEnt of their deSirEs and tHe ConTEnt of The OutcoMes theY Are in aRe also alwAyS SymmetRIcally sITUaTed iN terms of the fit betWEeN Their desires anD the ouTcOMeS. tHen, Our Argument amOuNts to AN argumeNT fOR A ResTRiction on any pLausible meaSUre Of (non-aGeNt-rELative) Fit, viZ., tHAt iNcreasing maTch iN content sOmetimES generaTEs diminIshing (But PlaUsibLY nOn-ZerO) rETurNS iN teRMs oF fit. GoinG fOrWard, wE'll cONTINue tO asSume The agEnt-relative meAsuRe of FIt, bUt notE that The aRgUmentS can alSo be rEaD in this alternatIve wAy. In the seConD vAriAtIon of aNnie's cAse, RefUsing to Make the TRadE gUARAnTees that Annie will cOnTINuE to have a 49% ProbabILiTy OF having 100 cHoColAte bARS. Thus The eXPeCted fit fOr refuSInG tHe trade Is: eF(AnniE rEfuSes 2Nd traDE,D​100-baRs​) = 0.49 x F(o​100-bArs​|D​100-bars​) + 0.51 X F(o​0-baRS​,D​100-bars​). By contraST, making the traDE gUARaNTees annIe a single chOcolATe baR but ALsO prEVents Her frOm GEtTIng any further chocolAtE bars. THus thE expected fit fOr making thE TRAde in thiS varIAtIOn of the case is sImply: eF(Annie makES 2nd trade,d​100-bars​) = f(o​1-bar​,D​100-baRs​) Again, thE EXpected fIt fOr eAch ActION wIll depend on hoW WEll ANnIe's desiRe fOr 100 chocoLatE baRs fIts ThE three outComes at pLaY hErE, i.E. o​0-bArs​, o​1-bAR​, and o​100-barS​. BY thE sAme Token AS beforE, howeVer, wE hAvE ThaT EF(AnniE ReFUSes 2nD tRaDe,D​100-bArs​) Is LargeR thaN eF(ANnie makEs 2nd trade,d​100-baRS​) if aNd OnLy if 0.49 x F(o​100-Bars​|D​100-bars​) > F(o​1-baR​,D​100-Bars​). This meAnS thAt the fIT For Annie'S desire D​100-bars in an outcome IN which sHe oNly haS a siNgle bar woUld Have to Be rOUghly hAlf (49%) of tHat in WhIch
 of fit between outcomes a nd desires  leav esope nwhet herhe intends itt o be  agent-relative or non -agen t- r elat i ve .) Su ppose i n st e a d t ha tmea su r es  of f itare not  relativetoag ents, so tha t  t wo agentssym metrically s itu ated b ot h i n  term s o f the  conte n t of t heir desi re s  and t h e conte n t  o f th e outcomes they a r ei n are also alw ays sy mm e tr i c all y s ituated in  t ermso f the f i tb e t wee n  their desire s and the o u tco mes. T he n,o ur arg ument  a m oun ts to an ar gume nt for arestri c tion on any pla usible  me asu re o f  ( no n-a ge n t-r e la tiv e ) f it, viz. ,th at in crea s i n g  mat chin c onten t sometimes g ene rate s  di minis hing(but  p lausi bly no n-zer o)  returns in ter ms o f fit. Go ing  f orw ar d, we ' ll con tin ueto assu me thea gen t- r e l at ive measure of fit ,b u tnote tha t thea rg um e nts canal sobe r e a d inthis al ternativ e way. In  t he seco nd  varia ti onofAnnie ' s ca se, re fusing t o mak e  the trade gua r antees that A n ni e wi l l co nti nue to have  a 4 9 % pr obab i li tyo f hav ing 1 00 ch o colate bars. Thus t he  expec ted f it for refusi ng the tra d e is: EF(A nnie re f uses 2nd trade ,D​10 0-bars​) = 0.49 x F (o​10 0-bars​| D​100-bar s ​ ) + 0.51  xF(o ​0- bar s ​ ,D ​100-bars​).B y  con tr ast, ma kin g the t rad e g uar ant ee s Annie a  singlech oc ol at e b ar bu t  also pr ev ent sher  from gettin g any  fur th er cho colateb ar s .  Thu sth e ex pec te d fit  for mak ing the  trade in  th i s va ri at ion ofthe case is s im ply: EF(An ni e m akes 2 n d  trade,D ​100-bars​) = F(o​1-bar ​ ,D​100- bar s​) A gain , the exp ect ed fit  fo r  eachaction  will  d epe n d  on h o w  w ell  A nnie's des i r e f or 10 0choc olate b ars fits the three out comes at play  he re,i . e.  o​ 0 -b a rs​ ,o ​1- b a r​, and o​100-b ars​. By t he sa me token a s  be fo re, how ever, w e hav e  that E F(Annie r efuses 2n dtrad e , D​1 00-bars​)is large r than EF ( Annie ma kes 2 ndtrade, D​ 100 -bars ​) ifa ndonlyif 0.4 9x F(o​ 100-b ar s​|D​100 -bars​) > F(o​1-bar​,D​ 100-ba rs​).  Th is meanstha t  th e fit for  Ann ie's desir e D ​10 0-bar s i n  an o utco m einw hichsheo nly has a si ngl e ba r would hav e t o b e rou ghl y  half(49% ) of that in whic h 
 of_fit between_outcomes and desires leaves_open whether_he_intends it_to_be agent-relative or_non-agent-relative.) Suppose instead_that measures of fit_are not relative_to_agents, so that two agents symmetrically situated both in terms of the content of_their_desires and_the_content_of the outcomes they are_in are also always symmetrically_situated in_terms of the fit between their desires and_the_outcomes. Then, our_argument amounts to an argument for a restriction on_any plausible measure of (non-agent-relative) fit,_viz., that increasing_match_in_content sometimes generates diminishing_(but plausibly non-zero) returns in terms_of fit. Going forward, we'll continue_to assume the agent-relative measure of fit,_but note that the arguments can_also be read in this_alternative way._In the second variation of_Annie's case, refusing_to make_the trade guarantees_that Annie will continue to have_a 49% probability_of having 100 chocolate bars. Thus_the_expected fit for_refusing_the_trade is:_EF(Annie refuses 2nd_trade,D​100-bars​)_= 0.49_x_F(o​100-bars​|D​100-bars​) + 0.51 x F(o​0-bars​,D​100-bars​). By_contrast,_making the trade guarantees Annie a single_chocolate bar but also_prevents_her from getting any_further chocolate bars. Thus the_expected fit for making the trade_in this_variation of_the case is simply: EF(Annie makes 2nd trade,D​100-bars​) = F(o​1-bar​,D​100-bars​) Again,_the expected fit for each action_will depend on how_well Annie's_desire_for 100 chocolate_bars_fits the_three outcomes at play here, i.e. o​0-bars​,_o​1-bar​, and_o​100-bars​. By the same token as_before, however, we have_that_EF(Annie refuses 2nd trade,D​100-bars​) is larger_than EF(Annie makes 2nd trade,D​100-bars​) if_and only if 0.49 x_F(o​100-bars​|D​100-bars​)_>_F(o​1-bar​,D​100-bars​). This means that the_fit for Annie's desire D​100-bars in_an outcome in_which she only has a single bar_would_have to be roughly half (49%)_of_that in which