The word or phrase that best connects the ideas in the sentences in question is D, that is, your anwer would be "in contrast".
The first part of the passage shows that we should have the right to choose sodas or snacks if we want to, we should be given the right to do that. On the contrary, the second part of the passage talks about that sometimes having too many options is not a good thing and it makes us unable to make the right choice.
The answer is D. Publising.
You didn't give the options. However, i'll try.
To me, a stone cannot be ethical because it cannot suffer. Indeed, the capacity for suffering must be satisfied before we talk about interest in a meaningful way. For instance, nothing we could possibly do for a stone could make a difference in its welfare. It don't have interest. Whereas, we, humans have interest. Therefore we can be ethical because we are sentient beings that can be benifited or harmed. It's because we can experience pain as a result.
Hope this helps !
Photon
What peom are you talking about?
