Week 8 Discussion — Already Spent: What Should Decide the Next Step? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

"We've already put so much into it, we can't stop now" sounds like common sense, and so does "it's been losing money, so shut it down." This week's margin rule says both can miss the point, because the only costs and benefits that can change a choice are the ones still ahead, so you can now test that rule on a decision you care about.

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: Think of a real choice you, or someone you know, faced after money or time had already been spent: a program or class you were unsure about halfway through, a car that needed one more repair, a nonrefundable trip, or a project at work. Using the marginal-benefit and marginal-cost rule, what should have decided the next step, and is "finish what you started" ever a good reason on its own? Name what was sunk, name the marginal benefit and the marginal cost of the next step from that point forward, and label which of your claims are positive (what is, or what would happen) and which are normative (what ought to be chosen).

Option B: A town has already spent money planning and opening a weekend community market, and it now has to decide whether to run the market one more season. One group of residents says the town has invested too much to stop now; another says the market has lost money every season, so it should close. Using the marginal-benefit and marginal-cost rule, what would you weigh from here forward, whose benefits and costs should count, and which way do you lean? Name what is sunk, and label which of your claims are positive and which are normative.

There is no single right answer. Two people who agree that spent money is sunk can still weigh the benefits and costs ahead of them differently. Pick the one you actually care about, and tell us your reasoning.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• Name what is sunk in your case and say in one sentence why it cannot change the choice.
• Name the marginal benefit and the marginal cost of the next step from that point forward, then say what you would choose and why.
• Give the strongest version of the opposite choice in one or two sentences, and say why you still hold your view or what part of the other view you accept.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (thinking at the margin, marginal benefit, sunk cost, net gain) correctly.
• Label at least one of your claims as positive (what is, or what would happen) and at least one as normative (what ought to be chosen).
• For Option A, share only what you are comfortable sharing; a choice someone else faced, or a made-up one, works as well as your own. Cite no politician, party, news outlet, or advocacy group as evidence.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: point out where a post lets past spending into the decision, ask what the marginal benefit or cost of the next step really is, or argue the opposite choice at its strongest. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like. Here are two short examples on Option B that lean in opposite directions; both meet the bar.

I chose Option B. Positive: the planning money and the first seasons' costs are sunk; closing now does not bring them back. Positive: one more season would cost the town the stall rent, staff, and cleanup, and would bring in vendor fees plus a busier main street. Normative: I lean toward one more season, because I count the shoppers' and vendors' gains as benefits, not only the fees. The strongest objection is that those gains may be too small to cover the cost, and I would check last season's attendance first.

I chose Option B. Positive: what the town already spent is sunk, so "we invested too much to stop" is not a reason. Positive: the next season's extra cost is the staff and cleanup, and its extra benefit is the fees and the shoppers' gains. Normative: I lean toward closing, because I doubt the next season's benefits reach its cost. The strongest objection is that a market can take time to build a crowd, and I accept that a better location might change my view.

Notice how each one names what is sunk, compares only what is still ahead, labels the positive and the normative parts, and gives the other side its strongest form. The lean is the student's own; either lean meets the same bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com