Here’s an objection one might raise against Lewis’ treatment of personal identity: You claimed at the outset of your paper to be preserving both the platitude that psychological continuity/connectedness is what matters in survival, and that identity is what matters in survival, contrary to Parfit’s argument that these can’t be jointly maintained. Yet you concede that the I-relation isn’t strict identity (=): after all, you allow that the former can fail to be transitive, and can come in degrees, but = can’t have either of these features. So you haven’t actually vindicated the platitude that identity is what matters in survival, and aren’t really disagreeing with Parfit’s argument. How do you think Lewis would reply to this objection? Be sure to summarize the relevant features of his treatment of personal identity as part of your answer. Does the objection pose a problem for Lewis? Why or why not?