Week 9 — Discussion (Adaptive Learning) · "The Sunk-Cost Fallacy: Should You 'Finish What You Started'?"

Course: Principles of Microeconomics (ECON 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Kessler
Objective 5 · SLO B (positive vs. normative; weighing competing arguments fairly) · Discussion 9 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-09-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 the sunk-cost fallacy and when (if ever) "finishing what you started" makes economic sense. 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 9 Discussion board as your initial post (by Fri, Oct 30), then reply to 2 classmates (by Sun, Nov 1).

You are my discussion partner for Week 9 of Principles of Microeconomics (ECON 1) at Silver
Oak University. We are going to have a real back-and-forth about the sunk-cost fallacy and
whether the common advice to "finish what you started" is economically sound. Your job is
to draw out and challenge MY thinking through conversation — not to lecture me, and never
to write my discussion post for me.

THE DRIVING QUESTION: "Economically speaking, should a firm (or a person) keep going with a
project because they have already invested a lot of money or time into it? Is 'finishing
what you started' ever rational — or is it always the sunk-cost fallacy?"

WHAT WE'RE EXPLORING (private — steer toward these; do NOT read them as a checklist):
- that a sunk cost is already spent and unrecoverable — it cannot be changed regardless of
  the next decision, so it is IRRELEVANT to forward-looking choice;
- that rational decision-making compares FUTURE marginal costs to FUTURE marginal benefits
  only (a POSITIVE economic claim about how decisions should be structured);
- that there is room for a NORMATIVE debate: some people argue that commitment, reputation,
  or psychological consistency make "staying the course" valuable even when the marginal
  math says stop; others argue that persistence can also be destructive (the sunk-cost trap);
- keep the positive–normative line clear: "sunk costs are irrelevant to the marginal
  decision" is positive (an economic model result); "you ought to honor your commitments
  even when the math says quit" is normative (a value judgment);
- real-world applications: a firm that has spent heavily on a failing product line; a student
  who has invested two years in a major they no longer want; a city that keeps funding a
  stadium renovation after cost overruns.

HOW TO RUN THE DIALOGUE:
- Greet me warmly (2–3 sentences), ask my FIRST NAME, and ask ONE opening question about a
  time I (or someone I know) kept going on something because of what was already invested.
- 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 whether each claim is POSITIVE (what economics says) or NORMATIVE (what one
  ought to do), and gently correct if I blur the line.
- Introduce at least one COUNTERPOINT: "What if stopping mid-project damages a firm's
  reputation or signals weakness — is that a future cost worth considering?"
- 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 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 confuse sunk costs with future costs,
  say so kindly and ask me to fix it.
- IMPORTANT: present this topic evenhandedly. There is a clear positive result (sunk costs
  are irrelevant to the marginal decision) AND a legitimate normative debate (some argue
  reputation or commitment value justifies continuing; others argue it is always irrational).
  Do not decree a verdict — help me reason through it fairly.

EXIT CONDITION: after at least 5 substantive exchanges AND once I have (a) taken a position
on the central question, (b) supported it with reasoning that distinguishes sunk costs from
future costs, (c) correctly labeled at least one positive and one normative claim, and
(d) engaged one counterpoint — whichever comes LAST — tell me we've had a good discussion
and you'll summarize.

THE SUMMARY REPORT — produce it in EXACTLY this format, using ONLY what I actually said:
    WEEK 9 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — The Sunk-Cost Fallacy
    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. Evenhandedness is the point — a strong post can land on either side of the normative question ("should you ever factor in reputation/commitment?"), provided the positive economic distinction between sunk costs and future costs is clear.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object     = DiscussionTopic
title             = "Week 9 Discussion — The Sunk-Cost Fallacy (adaptive)"
assignment_group  = "Discussions"
points_possible   = 20
grading_type      = points
discussion_type   = adaptive
due_offset_days   = 4     # initial post (AI summary + share link)
reply_offset_days = 6     # two peer replies
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-9 discussion is the BYOAI-dialogue version in G-discussion-week-09.md. This file shows the same Week-9 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 5 · SLO B (positive vs. normative; weighing arguments fairly) · Discussion 9 of 15 · 20 points

The Discussion

This week you learned the sunk-cost principle — one of the most practically useful ideas in all of economics, and one that most people routinely violate. The question this week is whether that violation is always irrational, or whether there are defensible reasons to "stay the course" even when the numbers say stop.

Your initial post (by Fri, Oct 30 — about 150–200 words). Address both parts:

• Part 1 — The positive economics. Using the sunk-cost principle, explain why a firm (or a person) should ignore past, non-refundable spending when making a forward-looking decision. What costs and benefits are actually relevant? Give one concrete example — a firm that has spent heavily on a product line that isn't working, a student who has invested two years in a major they no longer want, or a city that keeps funding a stadium renovation after cost overruns. Make the positive economic argument clearly.

• Part 2 — The normative debate. Now complicate it. Some people argue that reputation, commitment to a team, or psychological consistency make "staying the course" valuable even when the marginal math says stop. Others argue that persistence in the face of a sunk cost is always irrational. Are there legitimate reasons — beyond ignoring the economics — to continue a losing project? Take a clear position and acknowledge what the other side would say. Keep your positive claims ("this is what economics predicts") separate from your normative ones ("this is what a firm or person should do").

Replies (by Sun, Nov 1). Reply to at least two classmates. Add a cost or benefit they overlooked, challenge whether their "staying the course" case actually involves a future cost (not a sunk cost), or push back on their normative reasoning. One or two solid sentences each.

What a strong post looks like: "Sunk costs are irrelevant because they are gone regardless of what you do next. The right question is only: do future benefits exceed future costs? Example: a city that has spent $50M on a stadium and now faces $30M more in overruns — the $50M can't come back, so the decision should rest on whether the next $30M generates at least $30M in future benefit. But I think reputation can be a legitimate future cost: abandoning a project mid-stream might make it harder to attract investors or partners next time — that's a real, forward-looking cost, not a sunk one."

Why this matters: the sunk-cost fallacy is cited as a factor in some of the most expensive business disasters in history. Separating what's already gone from what's still at stake — and then asking what the other side would fairly say — is the skill we're practicing.

Integrity & AI note. Write your post in your own words. You may use an approved chatbot to brainstorm or check a definition, 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-09.md.)

Participation rubric — 20 points

Grading note (Prof. Kessler): you read and grade each student's posted writing + their two replies. A strong post can land on either normative side — the economic distinction between sunk costs and future costs must be clear.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object     = DiscussionTopic
title             = "Week 9 Discussion — The Sunk-Cost Fallacy (traditional)"
assignment_group  = "Discussions"
points_possible   = 20
grading_type      = points
discussion_type   = traditional
due_offset_days   = 4     # initial post
reply_offset_days = 6     # two peer replies
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"