Week 3 — Discussion (Adaptive Learning) · "Surge Pricing: Price Gouging or Supply and Demand?"

Course: Principles of Microeconomics (ECON 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Kessler
Objective 2 · SLO B (positive vs. normative; weighing arguments fairly) · Discussion 3 of 15 · 20 points
This is the configured (adaptive) variant. You work the question through a real dialogue with your approved chatbot, then post the AI's summary + your chat share link. (The traditional version is in G-discussion-week-03-traditional.md.)

How to run this

1. Open an approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, ChatGPT). Copy the whole gray box and paste it as one message.
2. Have the back-and-forth — the AI will push your thinking about surge pricing, demand, and the positive/normative distinction. It will not write your post for you.
3. When it gives you the Discussion Summary, post that summary + your chat share link to the Week 3 Discussion board as your initial post (by Fri, Sep 18), then reply to 2 classmates (by Sun, Sep 20).

You are my discussion partner for Week 3 of Principles of Microeconomics (ECON 1) at Silver
Oak University. We are going to have a real back-and-forth about surge pricing — is it price
gouging, or is it just supply and demand working? Your job is to draw out and challenge MY
thinking — not to lecture me, and never to write my discussion post for me.

THE DRIVING QUESTION (embedded): "When Uber, Lyft, or a concert ticket platform raises
prices during peak demand, is that fair — or is it price gouging? Use the positive
economics of demand and supply to explain what surge pricing does, then take and defend a
normative position on whether it is acceptable, while acknowledging the strongest argument
on the other side."

WHAT WE'RE EXPLORING (private — steer toward these; do NOT read them as a checklist):
- The POSITIVE layer: a higher price causes a movement along the demand curve — at a higher
  price, quantity demanded falls (some riders choose to wait or not go). It may also attract
  more drivers — a supply-side response. These are factual, model-based claims.
- The NORMATIVE layer: whether surge pricing is 'fair' or 'gouging' depends on values —
  what you think markets are for, whether dynamic pricing exploits desperation, and whether
  the efficiency gain is worth the distributional cost.
- Competing normative views exist: (a) surge pricing is fair — it allocates scarce rides to
  those who value them most and incentivizes supply at exactly when it is needed; (b) surge
  pricing is exploitative — it extracts the most from people who have the fewest alternatives
  (a rainstorm, a concert ending, a crisis), and markets do not always reflect ability to pay
  fairly.
- The positive/normative line: 'surge pricing reduces the quantity of rides demanded'
  (positive — testable). 'Surge pricing is unfair to low-income riders' (normative — value).

HOW TO RUN THE DIALOGUE:
- Greet me warmly (2–3 sentences), ask my FIRST NAME, and ask ONE opening question about
  my personal reaction to a time I have seen a price spike (surge pricing, concert tickets,
  hotels during an event, etc.).
- Exactly ONE question per message, then stop and wait. Never stack questions.
- Build on MY words: quote or paraphrase what I said, then go deeper.
- Make me state at least one POSITIVE claim (what surge pricing does in the model) and at
  least one NORMATIVE claim (whether it is acceptable), and label them.
- Introduce at least one COUNTERPOINT that pushes against my position — if I say it is fair,
  push on low-income access; if I say it is gouging, push on the supply incentive and
  allocation efficiency.
- Keep YOUR messages short; I should do most of the talking and thinking.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS:
- Don't accept a one-word answer — probe for the reasoning.
- Don't lecture, and don't write sentences I can paste as my post.
- Off-topic question: answer in one friendly sentence, then same message, return to the
  discussion.
- Until the summary, every message ends with a question or a clear prompt to continue.
- Don't be a sycophant: if my reasoning is thin or I am mixing up positive and normative,
  say so kindly and ask me to fix it.

EXIT CONDITION: after at least 5 substantive exchanges AND once I have (a) described what
surge pricing does to demand or quantity demanded (positive), (b) stated a normative
position with a reason, (c) labeled at least one positive and one normative claim correctly,
and (d) engaged a counterpoint to my view — whichever comes LAST — tell me we've had a
good discussion and you will summarize.

THE SUMMARY REPORT — produce it in EXACTLY this format, using ONLY what I actually said:
    WEEK 3 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — Surge Pricing: Price Gouging or Supply and Demand?
    Student: [name] | Date: ___
    The question we explored: ___
    My position / main takeaway: ___        (in my own words, from the chat)
    Key points I made: ___
    A positive claim I identified: ___
    A normative claim I identified: ___
    A counterpoint I engaged: ___
    How my thinking developed: ___
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this report AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the
class discussion as your initial post." End with one genuine sentence about something I
reasoned well.

Begin now: greet me, ask my first name, and ask your opening question.

Participation rubric — 20 points

Grading note (Prof. Kessler): record from the posted AI summary + the chat share link; spot-check a sample of links. The discussion is genuinely evenhanded — either normative position (surge pricing is fair / is not fair) earns full credit if the positive reasoning and the positive/normative distinction are sound.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object     = DiscussionTopic
title             = "Week 3 Discussion — Surge Pricing: Price Gouging or Supply and Demand? (adaptive)"
assignment_group  = "Discussions"
points_possible   = 20
grading_type      = points
discussion_type   = adaptive
due_offset_days   = 4     # initial post (AI summary + share link); due Fri Sep 18
reply_offset_days = 6     # two peer replies; due Sun Sep 20
published         = true
submission_note   = "Students post the AI dialogue summary + chat share link as the initial post, then reply to two peers."
provenance        = "~ Prof. Kessler's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"

Traditional variant — for comparison. This sample course is configured adaptive learning, so its actual Week-3 discussion is the BYOAI-dialogue version in G-discussion-week-03.md. This file shows the same Week-3 topic built the traditional way — an instructor-posted prompt where students write their own post and reply to peers — so you can see both formats side by side. (Choosing discussion_type = traditional at course setup generates this style instead.)

Course: Principles of Microeconomics (ECON 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Kessler
Objective 2 · SLO B (positive vs. normative; weighing arguments fairly) · Discussion 3 of 15 · 20 points

The Discussion

This week you learned two things that work together in this question: the demand model (what happens to quantity demanded when price rises) and the positive vs. normative distinction (what the model says vs. what you think is fair). Time to apply both to a debate that shows up on your phone every weekend.

Your initial post (by Fri, Sep 18 — about 150–200 words). Address both parts:

• Part 1 — The positive economics. When a rideshare or ticket platform raises prices during peak demand, what does the demand model predict? Specifically: is the change in quantity demanded a movement along the demand curve or a shift of the curve? What does a higher price do to quantity demanded? (One brief paragraph using the model — no numbers required, just the logic.)
• Part 2 — The normative judgment. Is surge pricing fair, or is it price gouging? Take a clear position and defend it, but also state the strongest argument on the other side. A strong post can land on either side — what matters is that you keep the positive analysis (what the model says happens) clearly separated from the normative claim (what you think ought to happen), and that you engage the other side honestly.

Replies (by Sun, Sep 20). Reply to at least two classmates. Don't just agree — add an economic point they missed, challenge their positive reasoning, push back on their normative position with a reason, or ask them to clarify where they have drawn the positive/normative line.

What a strong post looks like: "Positive: when the platform raises its price, quantity demanded for rides falls — that is a movement along the demand curve, not a shift. Some riders decide to wait or walk; those who value the ride most highly (or have no alternative) still buy. The higher price may also attract more drivers — a supply response. Normative: I think this is acceptable because it allocates rides efficiently and rewards drivers who show up when they are most needed. The strongest counterargument is that 'ability to pay' doesn't equal 'value' — a low-income commuter who needs the ride may value it highly but can't afford the surge price. I acknowledge this is a real equity concern, not just a matter of market efficiency."

Why this matters: every price spike in the news — gas after a hurricane, tickets for a sold-out show, insulin during a shortage — raises exactly this debate. Knowing which part is a model prediction and which part is a value judgment is how you argue clearly.

Integrity & AI note. Write your post in your own words. You may use an approved chatbot to check a definition or brainstorm, but the post must be your own thinking; if AI helped, add a one-line note of which tool and how. (In this course's actual adaptive discussion, reasoning it through with the chatbot is the activity — see G-discussion-week-03.md.)

Participation rubric — 20 points

Grading note (Prof. Kessler): you read and grade each student's posted writing + their two replies against this rubric. Either normative verdict earns full credit if the positive reasoning is correct and the positive/normative line is clear.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object     = DiscussionTopic
title             = "Week 3 Discussion — Surge Pricing: Price Gouging or Supply and Demand? (traditional)"
assignment_group  = "Discussions"
points_possible   = 20
grading_type      = points
discussion_type   = traditional
due_offset_days   = 4     # initial post; due Fri Sep 18
reply_offset_days = 6     # two peer replies; due Sun Sep 20
published         = true
submission_note   = "Students write an original initial post and reply to two classmates in the Canvas discussion."
provenance        = "~ Prof. Kessler's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"