  This PF judgment is more comprehensive than the ones we  attributed to Julie a moment ago, as it takes into account a broader  range of considerations. (I take the label  “comprehensive” from Lazar 1999.) Now in Julie’s case we  can surmise how she filled in those blanks: with “b is prima facie better than a.” Julie’s filling  in the blanks in that way can naturally be taken as expressing the  view that the much greater gastronomic excitement promised by  b outweighs or overrides b’s  inferiority to a from a strictly financial standpoint.