Exercise 2: Why Snapshots Aren't Backups — Possible Solution
====================================================================

WHY A SNAPSHOT DOESN'T PROTECT AGAINST DISK FAILURE
------------------------------
Per this chapter, a snapshot lives on the exact same physical disk as the data it captured. Copy-on-write makes snapshots cheap precisely because they don't duplicate data onto separate storage - they just track the volume's state and only start consuming extra space once the original data changes. That efficiency is also the weakness: if the physical disk itself fails entirely, both the live data and every snapshot taken of it are lost together, since neither ever existed anywhere else.

WHAT ACTUALLY WOULD PROTECT AGAINST IT
------------------------------
Per this chapter, real protection requires an actual separate backup destination - for macOS, Time Machine backing up to an external or network disk (covered in Chapter 9). Because that backup lives on genuinely different physical storage, it survives a failure of the original disk in a way a same-disk snapshot never could.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It correctly explains that a snapshot's copy-on-write efficiency depends on sharing the same physical disk as the original data, which is exactly why it offers no protection if that disk fails, and correctly identifies a genuinely separate backup destination (Time Machine to an external/network disk) as what actually provides that protection.