Exercise 2: A Real Sunk-Cost Situation and Its Resistant Alternative — Possible Solution
===========================================================================================

This exercise has no single correct situation to describe - the point
is honestly applying the Concorde case's own real pattern to a genuine
example. A worked example, using "continuing to pay for an unused gym
membership because of the money already spent on it this year":

THE SUNK-COST-DRIVEN VERSION: Continuing to renew the membership each
month, reasoning "I've already spent so much on this membership, it
would be wasteful to cancel now" - reasoning that focuses entirely on
money already spent, which can never be recovered regardless of what
happens next, exactly the same structure as the British and French
governments continuing to fund the Concorde because of how much had
already gone into it.

A GENUINELY SUNK-COST-RESISTANT VERSION: Evaluating the decision to
renew or cancel based only on future costs and benefits from this
point forward - specifically, asking "given what I know now about my
actual gym usage, is paying for the next month worth it, completely
ignoring how much I've already paid in the past?" If the honest answer
is no, canceling is the correct decision regardless of how much has
already been spent, exactly the same logic the Concorde project
should have applied once it became clear it would never be
profitable.

The key mechanism, matching the chapter's own case: a sunk-cost-
resistant decision treats past spending as genuinely irrelevant to a
forward-looking choice, since that money is gone either way and can
never be recovered by continuing.

ANSWER: (worked example) The sunk-cost-driven version continues paying
for a gym membership specifically because of money already spent. A
genuinely resistant version would evaluate only future costs and
benefits from today forward, treating past spending as irrelevant to
the decision - the same principle that should have applied to the
Concorde once its unprofitability became clear.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This models the reasoning pattern directly from the chapter's own
Concorde case, applied to a genuine, concrete example, which the
reader can then apply to their own specific situation.