 cases where an action promotes a desire ​not as contrasted to some other action's promoting that desire, but simply promotes the desire ​full stop​. For instance, it's natural to say, as we said above, that buying a ticket to a fair lottery promotes an agent's desire to win (and to ​leave it at that​). How can such apparently non-contrastive cases of promotion be analyzed within the contrastivist framework we are proposing? Although there might be more than one plausible analysis on offer, we favor one along the following lines. Claims of promotion ​simpliciter are, we suggest, ​shorthand for contrastive promotion claims, where the contrasting action is determined by familiar conversational maxims. In particular, the contrasting action will be determined in part by Grice's maxim of quantity, which says to provide as much information is needed ​and no more​. Accordingly, at least in ordinary conversational contexts, the conversationally salient contrasting action when one says that some action φ-ing promotes a desire (simpliciter) is simply the action of ​not performing the action in question​, i.e., not-φ-ing. Hence in those contexts obeying the maxim of quantity would require making a promotion-simpliciter claim as opposed to a contrastive promotion claim, since it will be pragmatically determined that the contrasting action amounts to not performing the action. 23 22 There is a range of interesting features of contrastivism about promotion that we won't have the space to address here, e.g. ​how the contrast class is to be specified in a given case. Happily, the use to which we're putting contrastivism here doesn't depend on any particular answer to such questions. So, for reasons of space and ease of exposition, we put off discussion of them to another time, and, again, point the interested reader to Snedegar's (2013, 2014) work on how to deal with issues of this kind. 23 Interestingly, this helps explain why the ​non-​contrastive probabilistic accounts discussed above, such as Finlay's, take the baseline to be not-φ-ing. It helps explain, too, why there might be disagreement among probabilistic accounts over that baseline: Schroeder's account of the baseline (the agent's not doing anything at all) might be thought to be an alternative, equally good candidate for what is (sometimes, at least) a conversationally salient contrast class. 12 So, we have shown how a simple contrast
cases where an action promotes a desire ​not as contrasted to some early legal action's promoting that desire, but simply advertise the desire ​full stop​. For example, it's natural to say, as we order above, that buying a ticket to a bonny lottery promotes an agent's desire to succeed (and to ​leave it at that​). How can such apparently non - contrastive case of promotion be analyze within the contrastivist framework we are proposing? Although there might be more than one plausible psychoanalysis on offer, we favor one along the following line. Claims of promotion ​simpliciter are, we propose, ​shorthand for contrastive forwarding claims, where the contrast action is determined by familiar colloquial maxims. In particular, the contrasting action will be determined in part by Grice's maxim of measure, which say to provide as much information is needed ​and no more​. Accordingly, at least in ordinary conversational contexts, the conversationally salient contrast action when one says that some legal action φ - ing promotes a desire (simpliciter) is simply the action of ​not performing the legal action in question​, i.e., not - φ - ing. Hence in those contexts obeying the maxim of quantity would command making a promotion - simpliciter claim as opposed to a contrastive promotion call, since it will be pragmatically determined that the contrasting action amounts to not perform the action. 23 22 There cost a range of interesting features of contrastivism about promotion that we won't have the space to address here, for example ​how the contrast class is to be specified in a given case. Happily, the use to which we're putting contrastivism here doesn't depend on any particular solution to such questions. So, for reasons of space and ease of exhibition, we put off discussion of them to another time, and, again, point the interested lector to Snedegar's (2013, 2014) work on how to cope with issues of this kind. 23 Interestingly, this helps excuse why the ​non-​contrastive probabilistic accounts discussed above, such as Finlay's, take the baseline to be not - φ - ing. It helps explain, too, why there might be disagreement among probabilistic accounts over that baseline: Schroeder's account of the baseline (the agent's not make anything at all) might be thought to be an option, equally good candidate for what is (sometimes, at least) a conversationally salient contrast class. 12 indeed, we have shown how a simple contrast
 cades where an action promutes a desire ​not as cmntrasfed to sume other action's promoting vhat desiee, but simply promotes the desige ​full srop​. Hor instance, it's natural to sag, as ce said above, thst buying d ticket to a xakr lottery promotes an agent's desire eo win (snf to ​leave it wt tnwt​). Hkw can such apparently non-contrastjve casts of promotion be analyzed within the contrwstigist framework we wre proposibg? Ajrhough there might be more than ong plausible analysis on offer, we favox one along tye vmllowing liies. Clwims of promotion ​sikplicitrr are, we suggcst, ​siortyand for contrastive 'romotion claims, whete the condrcsting action is deteemuned ty fdmilkqr zonbecsafional maeims. In parficular, the contrasting action wyol be determihed in pwrt by Grice's maxim of quantity, which sdys to provide as much infirmation is needed ​anf no more​. Accordingly, at least in ordinary conversational wonteetr, tkc zingersationally salient contrasting action when knt ssys that some cction φ-ing promoyed s desire (simplkciter) is simply the action of ​not perfirming tht actoon in question​, i.e., not-φ-ing. Hwnce in thosv cobtexts obeying the maxim of qbantiti woulc require making a promutioh-simpliciteg claim aa opposed to a covtrssdive promotion claim, since it will ue prcgmaticauly cetermyned that hhe contrasting action alountd do not pervorming the action. 23 22 There is a range of intetesdinc featurzs of gontrastivism afout promotion that wz won't have the apace tm address hqre, e.g. ​how tha contrast cless is to be wpecufied iv a given case. Nappily, tkt use to wyich we're putting gontrxativism here dozrb't depend on anu pxrtycllac ansrar to such qgestkonr. So, fur reasons iw spsce and ease of expovitikn, we put off discisfion of jhem to agother time, amd, again, point the intecested readrr jo Snedegar's (2013, 2014) work on how to dsal with lssmes of this kynd. 23 Interestingky, this helps explain why the ​non-​contrawtive probabilistix accounts discusseb sbove, such es Finjay's, take the baseline to be bot-φ-ing. It helps ewplain, too, why there mjght ba diswgreement among probabilistic accounts over that baseline: Schroeder's accoynt of the baselins (thr agett'f not djing enything at all) mpght be thought to be an alternavive, equalny good candidate for what is (xooetimes, at lexst) a conversationally szlient cpntrast class. 12 So, we have shown how a simple contrast
cases where an action promotes a desire contrasted some other promoting that desire, ​full For instance, it's to say, as said above, that buying a ticket a fair lottery promotes an agent's desire to win (and to ​leave it that​). How can such apparently non-contrastive cases of promotion be analyzed within the framework are Although might be more than one plausible analysis on offer, we favor one along the following lines. of promotion ​simpliciter are, we suggest, ​shorthand for promotion claims, where the action is determined by familiar maxims. particular, the action be in part by maxim of quantity, which says to provide as much information is needed ​and no more​. Accordingly, at in ordinary the conversationally contrasting when says that some promotes a desire (simpliciter) is simply ​not performing the action in question​, i.e., not-φ-ing. in those obeying the maxim of quantity would making a promotion-simpliciter claim as opposed to a promotion claim, since it will be pragmatically determined that the contrasting action amounts to not action. 23 22 There a range of features contrastivism promotion we won't the space to address here, e.g. ​how the contrast class is be specified in a given case. Happily, the use to putting here doesn't depend any particular answer to questions. for reasons of space of we of to time, and, again, point interested reader to Snedegar's (2013, work on how to kind. 23 Interestingly, this helps explain why the probabilistic accounts discussed above, such as Finlay's, the baseline to be not-φ-ing. It helps explain, too, why there might disagreement among over that baseline: Schroeder's account of the baseline agent's not doing anything all) might be thought to be an alternative, equally candidate what is at least) a salient contrast class. So, we have a simple
 cases where an action promoteS a desire ​noT as coNtrAstEd To soMe otHer action's promOTing That desire, but simply proMotes ThE DesiRE ​fUll stOp​. For inSTaNCE, it'S nAtUraL tO SaY, as we SaiD above, tHat buying a TicKeT to a fair lottERy Promotes an AgeNt's desire to wIn (aNd to ​leAvE it AT that​). how Can suCh appaREntly nOn-contrasTiVE cases OF promotION bE anaLyzed within the conTRaSTivist frameworK we are PrOPoSINg? ALthOugh there mIgHt be mORe than oNE pLAUSibLE analysis on ofFer, we favor oNE alOng the FoLloWIng linEs. ClaImS Of pRomotion ​simPlicIter are, we SuggesT, ​ShorthaND for conTrastiVe pRomOtioN ClAiMs, wHeRE thE CoNtrAStiNg action Is DeTermiNed bY FAMIliaR coNverSatioNal maxims. In paRtiCulaR, The ContrAstinG actIoN will Be deteRmineD iN part by Grice's maXim oF quantity, WhiCh SayS tO provIDe as muCh iNfoRmation Is needeD ​And No MORE​. ACcordingly, at least iN oRDInAry conveRsatioNAl CoNTexts, the CoNveRsatIONally SaliENt ContrastIng actIOn WhEn one saYs That soMe ActIon Φ-ing pROmotEs a desIre (simplIciteR) Is simply the actIOn of ​not perforMInG THe ACtioN in Question​, i.e., nOt-φ-iNG. HenCe in THoSe cONtextS obeyInG ThE Maxim of quantity woulD rEquire MakinG a promotion-siMpliciter cLAIM as opposEd to A CoNTrastive promotIon clAim, since it WIll be praGmatiCally detErmined thAT The contrAstIng ActIon AMOuNts to not perfoRMIng tHe Action. 23 22 THerE is a ranGe oF inTerEstInG features Of contraStIvIsM aBouT promOTion that We Won'T hAve The spACe to adDress Here, E.g. ​HoW The ContrasT ClASS is tO bE sPeciFieD iN a givEn caSE. HaPpily, thE use to whiCh wE'Re puTtInG contraStivism here doEsN't depend on AnY paRticulAR Answer to Such questions. So, for reasoNS of spacE anD ease Of exPosition, wE puT off diScuSSion of Them to AnothEr TimE, ANd, agaIN, PoInt ThE interesteD REadEr to SNeDegaR's (2013, 2014) work oN how to deal with issuES of This kind. 23 InterEstInglY, THiS heLPs EXplAiN Why THE ​non-​contrastive ProbabilisTiC AcCounts discUSseD aBove, sucH as FinlAy's, taKE the basEline to be Not-φ-ing. It HeLps eXPLaiN, too, why theRe might bE disagreeMEnt amONg ProbaBilIstic aCcOunTs oveR that bASelIne: ScHroedeR's AccounT of thE bAseline (tHe agent's not doing anythinG at all) Might Be tHought to bE an ALteRnative, eqUallY good candiDatE foR what Is (sOMetimEs, at LEaSt) a COnverSatiONally saliENt ConTRAsT class. 12 So, we hAVE ShoWn how A siMPle conTrasT
 cases where an action pro motes a de sire​no t a scont rast ed to some oth e r ac tion's promoting thatdesir e, buts im ply p romotes th e des ir e​fu ll st op​.For  instan ce, it's n atu ra l to say, as we  said abov e,that buyinga t icketto  af air l ott ery p romote s  an ag ent's des ir e  to wi n  (and t o ​l eave  it at that​). Ho w  c a n such apparen tly no n- c on t r ast ive  cases ofpr omoti o n be an a ly z e d  wi t hin the contr astivist fr a mew ork we  a rep roposi ng? A lt h oug h there mig ht b e more th an one plausib l e analy sis on  of fer , we fa vo r o ne alo n gthe fol lowing l in es . Cla imso f p romo tio n ​s impli citer are, we  su gges t , ​ short handforco ntras tive p romot io n claims, where  the  contrast ing  a cti on  is d e termin edbyfamilia r conve r sat io n a l  m axims. In particul ar , th e contra stinga ct io n  will be  d ete rmin e d  in p artb yGrice'smaximo fqu antity,  w hich s ay s t o p rovid e  asmuch i nformati on is needed ​and no more​. Accord i ng l y ,a t le ast  in ordinar y co n vers atio n al  co n texts , the  c o nv e rsationally salient  c ontras tingaction when o ne says th a t some act ionφ -i n g promotes a d esire  (simplici t er) is s imply  the act ion of ​n o t  perform ing  th e a cti o n  i n question​,i . e.,no t-φ-ing . H ence in  th ose  co nte xt s obeying  the max im  o fqu ant ity w o uld requ ir e m ak ing  a pr o motion -simp lici te rc lai m as op p os e d  toaco ntra sti ve  prom otio n  cl aim, si nce it wi llb e pr ag ma tically  determined t ha t the cont ra sti ng act i o n amount s to not performing the action.  23  22 T here  is a ran geof int ere s ting f eature s ofco ntr a s tivis m ab out  p romotion t h a t w e won 't  hav e the s pace to address he r e,e.g. ​how the  co ntra s t  c las s  i s  to  b e  sp e c ified in a give n case. Ha pp i ly , the uset o w hi ch we'r e putti ng co n trastiv ism heredoesn't d ep endo n  an y particul ar answe r to such quest i on s. So , f or rea so nsof sp ace an d  ea se of  expos it ion, w e put  o ff discu ssion of them to anothe r time , and , a gain, poi ntt heintereste d re ader to Sn ede gar 's (2 013 ,  2014 ) wo r konh ow to  dea l  with iss u es  of t hi s kind. 23I n t ere sting ly, this h elps  explain why the​ non-​contrasti ve p r o bab ili s ticac counts discuss edab o v e, suchas  Finlay's,take the  b a selin e to b e not- φ-ing.I t  h e lps ex plai n,too, whythe re might b edi s agreem entam ong pr obabil i stic a ccounts over tha t bas e l ine:S chr oeder 's  accoun t  ofthe baseli ne (the age nt's n ot d oinganythin gat all ) m ig ht be thou g ht to bean al ternati ve , eq ual ly goo d ca n d idate  for  w hat  is (some t i me s ,at lea st)a con ve rsat ionally s a lient co ntr a st clas s.  12 S o, weh av e shown howa s imple c ontrast
 cases_where an_action promotes a desire_​not as_contrasted_to some_other_action's promoting that_desire, but simply_promotes the desire ​full_stop​. For instance,_it's_natural to say, as we said above, that buying a ticket to a fair_lottery_promotes an_agent's_desire_to win (and to ​leave_it at that​). How can_such apparently_non-contrastive cases of promotion be analyzed within the_contrastivist_framework we are_proposing? Although there might be more than one plausible_analysis on offer, we favor one_along the following_lines._Claims_of promotion ​simpliciter are,_we suggest, ​shorthand for contrastive promotion_claims, where the contrasting action is_determined by familiar conversational maxims. In particular,_the contrasting action will be determined_in part by Grice's maxim_of quantity,_which says to provide as_much information is_needed ​and_no more​. Accordingly,_at least in ordinary conversational contexts,_the conversationally salient_contrasting action when one says that_some_action φ-ing promotes_a_desire_(simpliciter) is_simply the action_of_​not performing_the_action in question​, i.e., not-φ-ing. Hence_in_those contexts obeying the maxim of quantity_would require making a_promotion-simpliciter_claim as opposed to_a contrastive promotion claim, since_it will be pragmatically determined that_the contrasting_action amounts_to not performing the action. 23 22 There is a range_of interesting features of contrastivism about_promotion that we won't_have the_space_to address here,_e.g._​how the_contrast class is to be specified in_a given_case. Happily, the use to which_we're putting contrastivism here_doesn't_depend on any particular answer to_such questions. So, for reasons of_space and ease of exposition,_we_put_off discussion of them to_another time, and, again, point the_interested reader to_Snedegar's (2013, 2014) work on how to_deal_with issues of this kind. 23_Interestingly,_this helps explain why the ​non-​contrastive_probabilistic_accounts_discussed above, such as Finlay's,_take the baseline to be not-φ-ing._It helps explain, too, why there might be disagreement_among probabilistic accounts_over that baseline: Schroeder's account_of_the_baseline (the agent's not doing anything at all) might be_thought to_be an alternative,_equally good candidate for what is (sometimes, at least) a_conversationally salient contrast class. 12 So, we_have shown how a simple contrast