Week 15 — Grain, Pottery, and a Duty at the Border: Two Regions Trade

Assignment 14 of the term — compute an opportunity cost and a tariff duty, assign comparative advantage, and choose how a small business should first sell across a border.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, checkable analysis. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the work you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Business Case Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is the last of the course, so it asks you to put this week's trade tools together with a choice among the methods the course has taught.

The task

The case is illustrative, built for this course and not real data. Two neighboring regions, an upland region and a lowland region, each make grain and pottery. Like the coffee cart in this week's chapter, the case has no named people.

The case's figures:

• In one worker-day, the upland region makes 15 sacks of grain or 5 crates of pottery.
• In one worker-day, the lowland region makes 8 sacks of grain or 2 crates of pottery.
• A small furniture shop in the lowland region imports 7,500 dollars of chairs from a maker in another country, and an 8 percent tariff applies when the chairs reach a U.S. port.
• The same shop builds its own handmade tables and wants to start selling them in the upland region's markets across the border. The owner has little money to risk but cares a great deal about how the tables are built.

Work these two problems, showing every step of the arithmetic:

1. What is the upland region's opportunity cost of one crate of pottery, in sacks of grain?
2. How much duty is owed at the border on the furniture shop's chairs, in dollars?

Beside each answer, add a brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: say which region has the absolute advantage in each good and why; find the lowland region's opportunity cost of one crate of pottery and each region's opportunity cost of one sack of grain; assign the comparative advantage in pottery and in grain to the lower opportunity cost; then name one swap rate, in sacks of grain per crate, that would leave both regions better off, and explain why it works.
• Problem 2: say who owes the duty at the border and why; give two readings of who might bear the cost afterward, and label that question as open rather than settled; then choose the shop's first rung on the entry ladder for its tables, justify it from the case using risk and control, and explain why one other rung fits the case less well.

Explain it to a non-expert

A relative who runs a small farm asks you, "If the upland region is better at making both grain and pottery, why would it ever buy grain from the lowland region?" Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains comparative advantage in everyday words, answers the question from the case, and names one limit, including that the regions are illustrative and that nothing here is trade, tax, or legal advice for a real business. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a neighbor who reads that the country ran a trade deficit and asks whether the country now owes that money to someone. Model answer: "A trade deficit means that over the year, people and businesses here bought more from other countries than they sold to them. It is a measure of a year's buying and selling, not a loan that has to be paid back. Think of a month when you spent more at stores than you earned from a side job: you may have used savings, not borrowed. One limit: the figure alone doesn't tell you whether the economy is healthy. This is general information about how trade is measured, not advice about anyone's money."

Use that pattern for your relative, with your own wording and evidence.

Use what the whole course taught you

This is the last assignment of the course, so Problem 2 asks you to choose among methods you already know. When you pick the shop's first rung, you may also name one earlier tool, such as a SWOT, a break-even, or a stakeholder map, that you would use to test the choice before the shop commits, and say why that tool fits this decision better than another one. That reasoning counts toward Problem 2's interpretation, not as extra work.

After this assignment, Week 16 holds the cumulative final. Its study guide, the Final Practice Exam, and the exam-prep tutorial in that week help you prepare; the skill you practise here, choosing the right tool for a case and saying why another fits less well, is the same move the final asks you to make across every week.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both answers, both interpretations, and your message to your relative before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Reply in your own words. Show each step of the arithmetic when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one number or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the work for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introduction-to-business course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about opportunity cost, absolute and comparative advantage, terms of trade, who owes a tariff at the border, and how a small business chooses its first rung on the entry ladder. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, a survey, a quotation, a tariff rate, a figure that is not in the case, or a fact about a real company, never name a living politician, and never give trade, customs, tax, or legal advice for a real business.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The case: two illustrative neighboring regions, built for my course and not real data. In one worker-day, the upland region makes 15 sacks of grain or 5 crates of pottery, and the lowland region makes 8 sacks of grain or 2 crates of pottery. A small furniture shop in the lowland region imports 7,500 dollars of chairs from a maker in another country, and an 8 percent tariff applies when the chairs reach a U.S. port. The shop also builds its own handmade tables and wants to start selling them in the upland region's markets; the owner has little money to risk but cares a great deal about how the tables are built. In this course, absolute advantage is making more of a good from the same resources; opportunity cost of A = units of B given up / units of A gained; comparative advantage goes to the lower opportunity cost; a swap rate helps both sides only when it sits between the two opportunity costs; the importer of record owes the customs duty to the United States at the border, and who bears the cost afterward is an open empirical question; and the entry ladder runs from exporting through licensing, franchising, contract manufacturing, and a joint venture to direct foreign investment, with money at risk and control rising together.
PROBLEM P1: In the illustrative upland region, one worker-day makes 15 sacks of grain or 5 crates of pottery. What is the upland region's opportunity cost of one crate of pottery, in sacks of grain?
PROBLEM P2: An illustrative furniture shop imports 7,500 dollars of chairs, and an 8 percent tariff applies at the border. How much duty is owed at the border, in dollars?
After the two problems, I must interpret each one: for P1, say which region has the absolute advantage in each good and why, find the lowland region's opportunity cost of one crate of pottery and each region's opportunity cost of one sack of grain, assign the comparative advantage in pottery and in grain to the lower opportunity cost, and name one swap rate in sacks of grain per crate that would leave both regions better off, explaining why it works; for P2, say who owes the duty at the border and why, give two readings of who might bear the cost afterward and label that question as open, then choose the shop's first rung on the entry ladder for its tables, justify it from the case using risk and control, and explain why one other rung fits less well (I may also name one earlier course tool, such as a SWOT, a break-even, or a stakeholder map, to test the choice). I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a relative who asks why the upland region would ever buy grain from the lowland region if it is better at making both, explaining comparative advantage in everyday words and naming one limit, including that the regions are illustrative and that nothing in the case is trade, tax, or legal advice for a real business. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct numbers (20 points), business reasoning (48 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing the work so it can be checked (12 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 number points, 12 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 3 showing-the-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my final message only with P1, not again with P2.
NUMBER UNITS: A correct amount = 2; an amount that is off because of one arithmetic slip or one flipped ratio, with the work shown = 1; a missing amount or one with no work behind it = 0.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, BOTH absolute advantage separated from comparative advantage with each good assigned to the lower opportunity cost AND a swap rate between the two costs named and explained, plus a message to my relative that explains comparative advantage and names a limit = 2. If full P1 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. For P2, BOTH the importer of record named as owing the duty at the border with the later sharing labelled as open AND an entry-ladder rung chosen from risk and control with another rung ruled out = 2; exactly one of those parts = 1; neither = 0. No accurate reasoning = 0; naming a term alone does not earn a unit, and giving both comparative advantages to the region that makes more, turning a ratio upside down, saying the foreign maker pays the duty at the border, treating who bears the cost as settled, or giving confident customs or legal advice for a real business is not accurate. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labelled evidence understandable to someone new to business, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the final message with P1 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-THE-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the division or the multiplication that leads to the amount, written out with its numbers = 2; some steps shown but the amount cannot be fully rebuilt = 1; an amount alone or no work = 0. Visible work stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my reply. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word reply is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both amounts and their interpretations AND written my message to my relative AND revised at least one number or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score and do not round it. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my numbers, work, and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with both amounts, their interpretations, and your message to your relative — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the two regions' output and the entry ladder with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 15 skills — computing an opportunity cost one ratio at a time, separating absolute from comparative advantage, finding a swap rate that helps both sides, stating who owes a tariff at the border while keeping who bears it open, choosing an entry-ladder rung from risk and control, and explaining the idea to someone new to business — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, both interpretations, and the message to your relative. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one number or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The numbers, the work, the reasoning, the revision, and the final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce, and do not let it invent facts about the regions, a tariff rate, a figure, or any real company. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com