 $1 rather than buying nothing. This result is easily obtained: Since the fit between Bart's desire and the outcome is clearly greater when Bart has 10 bars rather than merely 1, we have that F(o​10-bars​,D​100-bars​) > F(o​1-bar​,D​100-bars​). 26 intuitive way of measuring the degree of promotion while at the same time taking the fit into account. 48 The second problem with Fit-Probabilism was that it delivered the wrong verdicts on what we called ​mixed cases​, i.e., cases either where a single action increased the degree of fit between a desire and the outcome while simultaneously decreasing the probability of that desire's satisfaction or ​vice versa​. To see how Contrastive Expected Fit solves this problem, consider the two variations on Annie's case again (4.2 above). In both variations Annie, like Bart, desires to have 100 chocolate bars. In the first variation, Annie is offered the opportunity to trade the 49 chocolate bars she currently has for a 1% chance at winning 100 bars. Contrastive Fit-Probabilism says that, because the probability of Annie satisfying her desire for 100 bars goes up were she to trade her 49 bars rather than reject the trade, doing so promotes her desire. In the second variation, Annie is offered the opportunity to trade the 49 out of 100 tickets to the 100 chocolate bar lottery she currently has for a single chocolate bar. Contrastive Fit-Probabilism says that, because the fit between Annie's desire and the outcome goes up were she to trade her tickets for the single chocolate bar, accepting rather than rejecting the trade promotes her desire. Both results are, as we said, incorrect. Intuitively, in the first variation Annie's desire is ​not promoted by trading her bars for the single ticket. And in the second variation, Annie's desire is ​not promoted by trading her tickets for the single bar. Let us consider how Contrastive Expected Fit deals with these cases. In the first variation of the case, refusing to make the trade guarantees that Annie will continue to have 49 chocolate bars. Thus the expected fit for refusing the trade is simply: EF(Annie refuses 1st trade,D​100-bars​) = F(o​49-bars​|D​100-bars​). As before (see section 5.2), we have that EF(Bart buys 1 bar,D​100-
$ 1 rather than buying nothing. This result is easily prevail: Since the paroxysm between Bart's desire and the outcome is clearly greater when Bart have 10 bars rather than merely 1, we have that F(o​10 - bars​,D​100 - bars​) > F(o​1 - bar​,D​100 - bars​). 26 intuitive room of measure the degree of forwarding while at the like time taking the burst into account. 48 The second problem with Fit - Probabilism was that it delivered the ill-timed verdicts on what we call ​mixed cases​, i.e., cases either where a single military action increased the degree of fit between a desire and the consequence while simultaneously decreasing the probability of that desire's satisfaction or ​vice versa​. To see how Contrastive expect Fit solves this problem, consider the two variations on Annie's case again (4.2 above). In both variation Annie, like Bart, desires to have 100 chocolate bars. In the first mutant, Annie is offered the opportunity to trade the 49 chocolate bars she currently has for a 1% chance at winning 100 bars. Contrastive Fit - Probabilism say that, because the probability of Annie satisfying her desire for 100 bars blend up were she to deal her 49 bar rather than reject the trade wind, doing so promotes her desire. In the second variation, Annie is offer the opportunity to trade the 49 out of 100 tickets to the 100 chocolate bar lottery she currently has for a unmarried chocolate bar. Contrastive Fit - Probabilism says that, because the paroxysm between Annie's desire and the outcome run low up were she to trade her tickets for the single chocolate bar, accept rather than rejecting the trade advertise her desire. Both results are, as we said, incorrect. Intuitively, in the first pas seul Annie's desire is ​not promoted by trade her bars for the individual ticket. And in the second version, Annie's desire is ​not promoted by deal her tickets for the individual bar. Let us regard how Contrastive expect Fit deals with these case. In the first variation of the case, refuse to make the trade guarantees that Annie will cover to have 49 chocolate cake. Thus the expected fit for defy the trade is simply: EF(Annie refuses 1st trade, D​100 - bars​) = F(o​49 - bars​|D​100 - bars​). As before (see section 5.2), we take that EF(Bart buy 1 bar, D​100-
 $1 rwther than buying nothinn. This result is easily obtaihed: Sincd the fit between Bart's desice abd tht outcome is clearlh greater when Baet hes 10 bars rather vgan mercjy 1, sc havz vhat F(o​10-bars​,D​100-barx​) > F(o​1-bar​,D​100-bdrs​). 26 intuitive wxy of measuring the degree of promotijn whilr wt the same tiie tshing nht fit into account. 48 The second prkblem wpth Fit-Probabilisk was that it delivered thf wrlng verdicts on whwt we callee ​mivwd cases​, i.e., zases eithtr where a sjngle action increased the degrde of fit betwegu a fgsire and thx outcjme while simultaneogsly devreasing the pvobabmlitt of that desire's satmsfaction or ​vice vetsa​. To see hkw Contrastive Expexted Xit volvdw tfis pcobmem, cojsiver the two variations on Annie's case agaon (4.2 above). In botg variwtyons Annie, like Bart, desires to have 100 cvocklate bars. In the first variation, Annie is ovfered thq opportunity to trade the 49 chocolate bars she cusrentmh hcw for q 1% chance at winning 100 bars. Contrastive Fit-Probafjlosk says that, begause the probabilotj ps Annie satiswying ksr desire for 100 bars hoes up were she to twade her 49 bars rather than rejext the trade, eoing so promotes ker desire. Iu the xeconc variation, Annie is ofyered fhe opportujity to tdxde the 49 out of 100 tibketv to the 100 chocolate bar loetery she curxently hxs fpr a syngle chocllate bar. Contrastive Fih-Probcbilivm says thwt, because the fit between Annix'x desire and tve mutcome yoes ui were she to twade her tickejs for thz singue chocolane bar, acrepting rathqr than rejecdlng the tradx promotef hee dewire. Bogf results are, ss we saib, incirrect. Intuitively, in fhe first variacnob Annie's desire is ​noe irokoead by tradinc hef bxts fof the singlc tkckey. And in the second eariztion, Annie's desirr ls ​not primoted br trading her tickets for the slngle bac. Let is sonsider how Contrastive Expecfed Fit dfalf with these cascs. Ig the firsc variation of the case, refusing to make the trade guaranjees that Annie will eoktinue to hate 49 chjcolate bdrs. Thus the expectee fit for refusinn the trade is simply: SF(Annia refkses 1st trade,D​100-bars​) = F(o​49-bars​|D​100-bars​). As before (see section 5.2), we have that EF(Barr buys 1 bar,D​100-
$1 rather than buying nothing. This result obtained: the fit Bart's desire and when has 10 bars than merely 1, have that F(o​10-bars​,D​100-bars​) > F(o​1-bar​,D​100-bars​). 26 way of measuring the degree of promotion while at the same time taking fit into account. 48 The second problem with Fit-Probabilism was that it delivered wrong on we ​mixed cases​, i.e., cases either where a single action increased the degree of fit between a and the outcome while simultaneously decreasing the probability that desire's satisfaction or versa​. To see how Contrastive Fit this problem, the variations Annie's case again above). In both variations Annie, like Bart, desires to have 100 chocolate bars. In the first variation, is offered to trade 49 bars currently has for chance at winning 100 bars. Contrastive because the probability of Annie satisfying her desire 100 bars up were she to trade her bars rather than reject the trade, doing so her desire. In the second variation, Annie is offered the opportunity to trade the 49 100 tickets to the chocolate bar lottery currently for single bar. Contrastive says that, because the fit between Annie's desire and the outcome up were she to trade her tickets for the single accepting than rejecting the promotes her desire. Both are, we said, incorrect. Intuitively, first Annie's promoted trading bars for the single And in the second variation, desire is ​not promoted the single bar. Let us consider how Contrastive Fit deals with these cases. In the variation of the case, refusing to make the trade guarantees that Annie continue to chocolate bars. Thus the expected fit for refusing trade is simply: EF(Annie 1st trade,D​100-bars​) = F(o​49-bars​|D​100-bars​). As before (see section 5.2), have EF(Bart buys bar,D​100-
 $1 rather than buying nothing. ThIs result is EasilY obTaiNeD: SinCe thE fit between BarT'S desIre and the outcome is cleaRly grEaTEr whEN BArt haS 10 bars raTHeR THan MeReLy 1, wE hAVe That F(O​10-baRs​,D​100-bars​) > f(o​1-bar​,D​100-bars​). 26 IntUiTive way of meaSUrIng the degrEe oF promotion whIle At the sAmE tiME takiNg tHe fit Into acCOunt. 48 ThE second prObLEm with fIt-ProbaBILiSm waS that it delivered tHE wROng verdicts on wHat we cAlLEd ​MIXed CasEs​, i.e., cases eItHer whERe a singLE aCTIOn iNCreased the degRee of fit betWEen A desirE aNd tHE outcoMe whiLe SImuLtaneously dEcreAsing the pRobabiLIty of thAT desire'S satisFacTioN or ​vICe VeRsa​. to SEe hOW COntRAstIve ExpecTeD FIt solVes tHIS PRoblEm, cOnsiDer thE two variationS on anniE'S caSe agaIn (4.2 aboVe). In BoTh varIationS AnniE, lIke Bart, desires tO havE 100 chocolatE baRs. in tHe First VAriatiOn, ANniE is offeRed the oPPorTuNITY tO trade the 49 chocolate BaRS ShE currentLy has fOR a 1% ChANce at winNiNg 100 bArs. CONTrastIve FIT-PRobabiliSm says THaT, bEcause tHe ProbabIlIty Of ANnie sATisfYing heR desire fOr 100 barS Goes up were she tO Trade her 49 bars rAThER ThAN rejEct The trade, doiNg so PRomoTes hER dEsiRE. In thE secoNd VArIAtion, Annie is offered ThE opporTunitY to trade the 49 ouT of 100 tickets TO THe 100 chocolAte bAR lOTtery she currenTly haS for a singlE ChocolatE bar. COntrastiVe Fit-ProbABIlism sayS thAt, bEcaUse THE fIt between AnniE'S DesiRe And the oUtcOme goes Up wEre She To tRaDe her tickEts for thE sInGlE cHocOlate BAr, acceptInG raThEr tHan reJEcting The trAde pRoMoTEs hEr desirE. boTH ResuLtS aRe, as We sAiD, incoRrecT. intUitivelY, in the firSt vARiatIoN ANnie's deSire is ​not promOtEd by tradinG hEr bArs for THE single tIcket. And in the second variATion, AnnIe's DesirE is ​nOt promoteD by TradinG heR TicketS for thE singLe Bar. lET us coNSIdEr hOw contrastivE eXpeCted FIt DealS with thEse cases. In the first VAriAtion of the casE, reFusiNG To MakE ThE TraDe GUarANTees that Annie wiLl continue To HAvE 49 chocolate BArs. thUs the exPected fIt for REfusing The trade iS simply: EF(anNie rEFUseS 1st trade,D​100-bArs​) = F(o​49-barS​|D​100-bars​). As bEFore (sEE sEctioN 5.2), we Have thAt eF(BArt buYs 1 bar,D​100-
 $1 rather than buying not hing. This  resu ltisea sily  obt ained: Since t h e fi t between Bart's desir e and  t h e ou t co me is  clearl y  g r e ate rwh enBa r thas 1 0 b ars rat her than m ere ly  1, we havet ha t F(o​10-b ars ​,D​100-bars ​)> F(o​ 1- bar ​ ,D​10 0-b ars​) . 26 i n tuitiv e way ofme a suring the deg r e eof p romotion while at th e  same time tak ing th ef it i nto  ac count. 48Th e sec o nd prob l em w i thF it-Probabilis m was thati t d eliver ed  th e  wrong  verd ic t s o n what we c alle d ​mixedcases​ ,  i.e.,c ases ei ther w her e a  sin g le  a cti on inc r ea sed the  degreeof  f it be twee n a desi reandthe o utcome whilesim ulta n eou sly d ecrea sing  t he pr obabil ity o fthat desire's s atis faction o r ​ vi ceve rsa​. To see  ho w C ontrast ive Exp e cte dF i t  s olves this problem ,c o ns ider the  two v a ri at i ons on A nn ie' s ca s e  agai n (4 . 2above).In bot h  v ar iations  A nnie,li keBar t, de s ires  to ha ve 100 c hocol a te bars. In th e  first variat i on , An n ie i s o ffered theoppo r tuni ty t o  t rad e  the49 ch oc o la t e bars she currentl yhas fo r a 1 % chance at w inning 100 b a rs. Cont rast i ve Fit-Probabilis m say s that, be c ause the  prob abilityof Annies a tisfying  he r d esi ref o r100 bars goes u p we re  she to  tr ade her  49  ba rsrat he r than re ject the  t ra de ,doi ng so promotes  h erde sir e. In the se condvari at io n , A nnie is of f e redth eoppo rtu ni ty to  tra d e t he 49 o ut of 100  ti c kets  t othe 100  chocolate ba rlottery sh ecur rently h as for a  single chocolate bar.C ontrast ive  Fit- Prob abilism s ays  that,  be c ause t he fit  betw ee n A n n ie'sd e si rean d the outc o m e g oes u pwere  she to  trade her tickets for  the single c hoc olat e ba r,a cc e pti ng rat h e r than rejectin g the trad ep ro motes herd esi re . Bothresults  are, as we s aid, inco rrect. In tu itiv e l y,in the fir st varia tion Anni e 's de s ir e is​no t prom ot edby tr adingh erbarsfor th esingle  tick et . And in  the second variation,Annie' s des ire  is ​notpro m ote d by trad ingher ticket s f orthe s ing l e bar . Le t  u s c o nside r ho w  Contrast i ve  Ex p e ct ed Fit deal s w ith  thes e c a ses. I n th e first variation of the case, r efus i n g t o m a ke t he  trade guarant ees  t h a t Anniewi ll continue  to have  4 9  choc olatebars.Thus th e ex p ectedfitfor  refusing  th et rade is  s im p ly: EF (Ann ie  refus es 1st trad e , D​100-bars​) = F (o​49 - b ars​| D ​10 0-bar s​ ). As b e fore  (see sect ion 5.2), w e have  tha t EF( Bart bu ys  1 bar ,D​ 10 0-
 $1_rather than_buying nothing. This result_is easily_obtained:_Since the_fit_between Bart's desire_and the outcome_is clearly greater when_Bart has 10_bars_rather than merely 1, we have that F(o​10-bars​,D​100-bars​) > F(o​1-bar​,D​100-bars​). 26 intuitive way of_measuring_the degree_of_promotion_while at the same time_taking the fit into account._48 The_second problem with Fit-Probabilism was that it delivered_the_wrong verdicts on_what we called ​mixed cases​, i.e., cases either where_a single action increased the degree_of fit between_a_desire_and the outcome while_simultaneously decreasing the probability of that_desire's satisfaction or ​vice versa​. To_see how Contrastive Expected Fit solves this_problem, consider the two variations on_Annie's case again (4.2 above)._In both_variations Annie, like Bart, desires_to have 100_chocolate bars._In the first_variation, Annie is offered the opportunity_to trade the_49 chocolate bars she currently has_for_a 1% chance_at_winning_100 bars._Contrastive Fit-Probabilism says_that,_because the_probability_of Annie satisfying her desire for_100_bars goes up were she to trade_her 49 bars rather_than_reject the trade, doing_so promotes her desire. In_the second variation, Annie is offered_the opportunity_to trade_the 49 out of 100 tickets to the 100 chocolate bar_lottery she currently has for a_single chocolate bar. Contrastive_Fit-Probabilism says_that,_because the fit_between_Annie's desire_and the outcome goes up were she_to trade_her tickets for the single chocolate_bar, accepting rather than_rejecting_the trade promotes her desire. Both_results are, as we said, incorrect._Intuitively, in the first variation_Annie's_desire_is ​not promoted by trading_her bars for the single ticket._And in the_second variation, Annie's desire is ​not promoted_by_trading her tickets for the single_bar._Let us consider how Contrastive Expected_Fit_deals_with these cases. In the_first variation of the case, refusing_to make the trade guarantees that Annie will continue_to have 49_chocolate bars. Thus the expected_fit_for_refusing the trade is simply: EF(Annie refuses 1st trade,D​100-bars​) =_F(o​49-bars​|D​100-bars​). As_before (see section_5.2), we have that EF(Bart buys 1 bar,D​100-