These are the reasons that chocolate cake is always better than chips:
Chips require dip. Rarely am I content to eat chips alone. They don't slide well down the back of one's throat without dip.
Here's the problem with dip: If you don't make it yourself (and who does on a Monday when alone all day?) *ahem* If you don't make it yourself, the inevitable short or broken chips, which deserve dip just as much as the whole ones, are incapable of reaching deep enough in the jar to scoop anything out. Which means you either have to scoop the dip out into a separate dish (Monday. Alone. Make more dirty dishes? Not a chance.) or use a larger chip to scoop an extra amount of dip that will be enough for itself AND the handicapped chips. This is how that looks:
I grab a handful of chips. Mostly broken. Saving the large one, I put the rest in my mouth and, trying not to chew or salivate on them, I quickly use the whole chip to scoop enough dip for all of them and shove it in my mouth with the others, only then chewing. This way they all have dip.
Here's the problem with that: I am reading a book. I do not have enough hands or attention span for the complicated chip/dip relations. I disapprove of junk food taking up too much attention. It's junk food because it's easy. Non-easy junk food is worthless.
And we come full circle: Chocolate cake requires no frosting. It requires only one hand. It tastes better. It lends itself well to being eaten while reading a book.
Consider yourselves well-informed. Feel free to cite this post in future term papers on the matter.