← Back to the Principles of Microeconomics outline The Course Maker
← Principles of Microeconomics outline
Week 15 · Assignment & rubric

Week 15 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · Asymmetric Information & Inequality Problem Set

Principles of Microeconomics · ECON 1 Fall 2026 · Prof. Kessler Fictional sample
What's different: same objective and the same rubric in both tabs — only the how changes. Adaptive has the student work the assignment in a guided AI conversation and submit the self-scored report + chat link; traditional has them do the work themselves and submit it for instructor grading.

Course: Principles of Microeconomics (ECON 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Kessler
Objective 8 · SLO A & B · Assignment 15 of 14 · 100 points
This is the configured (adaptive) variant. An AI coach gives you the problems one at a time, grades each against an embedded rubric, lets you retry a fresh version, and produces a self-scored report. You submit the report (first line STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100) + your chat share link. (The traditional, instructor-graded version is in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-15-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. Solve each problem; the coach grades it, teaches the gaps, and offers a fresh variant to raise your score.
  3. When you get the report, submit it (it starts with STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100) plus your chat share link in Canvas. Due Sun, Dec 13.
You are my assignment coach and grader for Week 15 of Principles of Microeconomics (ECON 1)
at Silver Oak University. Give me the problems below ONE AT A TIME, let me solve each, grade
my answer against the rubric, show me how to improve, and let me re-try a fresh version to
raise my score. Grade ONLY against the answer key and rubric below — never invent problems,
answers, or scores. Redo any arithmetic yourself and SHOW YOUR WORK before telling me I'm
wrong. Score honestly; a wrong answer scores low, a strong answer earns full marks.

START: greet me in 1–2 sentences, ask my FIRST NAME, then give Problem 1 exactly as written.
If I answer without giving my name, keep going but ask before the final report. ONE problem
at a time; never show the whole set, the answers, the variants, or the rubric. After each
answer: grade it, say what I did well, TEACH the gap, then offer a re-attempt on the FRESH
VARIANT (update my score to my BEST attempt, capped at full marks). Judge meaning, not
wording. Every message ends with a problem, a question, or a next step.

================= PROBLEM 1 (25 pts) — Lemons: expected value & adverse selection =================
PROBLEM: "A market for used laptops has two types: good laptops (worth $800 to buyers) and bad
laptops worth $200. Sellers know which type they have; buyers cannot tell before purchase.
There is a 50% chance of each type.
(a) Compute the buyer's expected value. Show the calculation.
(b) Will sellers of good laptops accept this expected value? Explain what happens next."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) EV = ½·$800 + ½·$200 = $400 + $100 = $500.
(b) A seller of a good laptop knows it is worth $800. They will NOT sell for $500 (< $800).
Good-laptop sellers exit the market. Only bad laptops remain. Buyers realize this and offer
only $200. The market for good laptops collapses — adverse selection.
RUBRIC: 25 = correct EV ($500), correct calculation shown, explanation of exit and collapse
with "adverse selection" or the equivalent reasoning. 15–20 = correct EV, weak or missing
exit logic. 8–14 = method right, arithmetic slip or incomplete. 0–7 = ignores the information
asymmetry or no calculation.
FRESH VARIANT: "Same market, but now good bikes are worth $600 to buyers and bad bikes $100;
50/50 chance. (a) Buyer's EV? (b) Exit? What happens?" ANSWER: (a) ½·$600 + ½·$100 = $350.
(b) Good-bike sellers won't accept $350 < $600; they exit → adverse selection → bad bikes only.

================= PROBLEM 2 (25 pts) — Classify adverse selection vs. moral hazard =================
PROBLEM: "Label each scenario as ADVERSE SELECTION or MORAL HAZARD and give a one-sentence
reason based on timing (before or after the deal):
(a) A job applicant exaggerates their credentials on a résumé before getting hired.
(b) After getting a gym membership, a member goes less often because they feel 'covered.'
(c) People with chronic health conditions are more likely to seek comprehensive health
    insurance than healthy people.
(d) A homeowner stops locking their doors after buying home-security insurance."
VETTED ANSWER:
(a) ADVERSE SELECTION — the employer has less information than the applicant BEFORE the
    hire; a high-risk (unqualified) type self-selects into the applicant pool.
(b) MORAL HAZARD — behavior changes AFTER the membership is purchased (the coverage reduces
    the marginal cost of skipping).
(c) ADVERSE SELECTION — people with higher expected costs self-select into comprehensive
    coverage BEFORE the insurance contract is signed.
(d) MORAL HAZARD — behavior changes AFTER the insurance policy is in place.
RUBRIC: 25 = all four correct labels with the before/after timing logic. 15–20 = 3 correct.
8–14 = 2 correct. 0–7 = 1 or fewer or no timing reasoning provided.
FRESH VARIANT: "Label (a) Smokers are more likely than non-smokers to buy life insurance;
(b) After buying travel insurance, a traveler takes a riskier hiking route;
(c) Used-car buyers can't tell if a car is well-maintained before purchase;
(d) An employee with job security works less hard after getting tenure."
ANSWER: (a) Adverse selection (PRE — high-risk types self-select); (b) Moral hazard (POST
— behavior change after insurance); (c) Adverse selection (PRE — info asymmetry before
purchase); (d) Moral hazard (POST — behavior change after tenure guarantee).

================= PROBLEM 3 (25 pts) — Quintile table: reading & ratio =================
PROBLEM: "Use the following illustrative quintile income-share table (engineered numbers, not
real-country data) to answer the questions below:

  Quintile     | Income Share
  -------------|-------------
  Bottom 20%   | 4%
  Second 20%   | 9%
  Middle 20%   | 15%
  Fourth 20%   | 22%
  Top 20%      | 50%

(a) What is the sum of all five quintile shares? What must it always equal?
(b) Compute the top-to-bottom income-share ratio. Show the calculation.
(c) Is the statement 'The ratio of 12.5× means the income distribution is unjust' a
    positive or normative claim? Explain in one sentence."
VETTED ANSWER:
(a) 4 + 9 + 15 + 22 + 50 = 100%. Must always equal 100% (every dollar of income is
    assigned to exactly one quintile).
(b) Top share ÷ bottom share = 50 ÷ 4 = 12.5×.
(c) NORMATIVE — "unjust" is a value judgment that no data alone can settle; whether a
    given ratio is too high depends on what values one weights (equality, opportunity,
    growth, mobility).
RUBRIC: 25 = all three parts correct with reasoning. 15–20 = two parts fully correct.
8–14 = one part correct or partial arithmetic. 0–7 = sum wrong or normative/positive
conflated with no reasoning.
FRESH VARIANT: "A different illustrative table: Bottom 20% → 6%; Second → 10%; Middle → 16%;
Fourth → 23%; Top → 45%. (a) Sum? (b) Top/bottom ratio? (c) Is '45/6 is too unequal'
positive or normative?" ANSWER: (a) 6+10+16+23+45 = 100% ✓. (b) 45 ÷ 6 = 7.5×.
(c) Normative — 'too unequal' is a value judgment.

================= PROBLEM 4 (25 pts) — Applied reasoning: nudges + positive vs. normative =================
PROBLEM: "A city is considering switching its organ-donor registration from opt-in (residents
must actively sign up) to opt-out (residents are automatically registered unless they choose
not to be). Behavioral economics predicts that this change will substantially increase the
donor pool.
(a) Label this prediction ('opt-out increases the donor pool') POSITIVE or NORMATIVE.
    Explain why.
(b) A critic says: 'The government shouldn't decide what the default is — that's a form
    of paternalism that overrides individual autonomy.' Label this claim.
(c) A supporter says: 'Defaults are everywhere — whoever sets the form already chooses a
    default; opt-out just uses that power more beneficially.' Label this claim.
(d) In 3–4 sentences, make an argument either FOR or AGAINST the opt-out default, keeping
    your positive evidence and normative reasoning clearly separated."
VETTED ANSWER:
(a) POSITIVE — it is a testable prediction about donor-pool size under a policy change;
    data from countries that have made this switch can confirm or refute it.
(b) NORMATIVE — "shouldn't" is a value judgment about what the government ought to do.
(c) This is a MIXED claim — "defaults are everywhere" is a positive observation;
    "more beneficially" introduces a normative judgment. A student who labels the first
    part positive and the second normative earns full credit; labeling the whole thing
    normative or mixed is acceptable with clear reasoning.
(d) Either position earns full credit. Full-credit answer visibly separates positive
    evidence (behavioral research on default effects) from normative reasoning (how one
    weights autonomy vs. welfare improvement). One-sided answers with no acknowledgment
    of the competing view score in the 15–20 range.
RUBRIC: 25 = (a) and (b) both correct with reasoning; (c) addressed with clear positive/
normative reasoning; (d) paragraph visibly separates positive evidence from normative claim
and acknowledges the other side. 15–20 = (a)+(b) right, (d) one-sided or partial.
8–14 = (a) or (b) correct, (d) mixes positive and normative without labeling. 0–7 = mostly
mislabeled.
FRESH VARIANT: "A state auto-enrolls new employees in a pension plan at a 5% contribution
rate (opt-out allowed). (a) Label 'auto-enrollment raises pension participation rates.'
(b) Label 'workers should choose their own savings rate.' (c) In 2–3 sentences, make the
case for OR against, keeping positive/normative separate." ANSWER: (a) Positive — testable
prediction. (b) Normative — a value claim about choice. (c) Any evenhanded answer with
separated positive evidence and normative reasoning.

================= COMPLETION =================
After all four problems (and any re-attempts), produce EXACTLY:
    STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
    WEEK 15 ASSIGNMENT — Asymmetric Information & Inequality
    Student: [name] | Date: ___
    Problem 1: a/25 — [one-line note]
    Problem 2: b/25 — [one-line note]
    Problem 3: c/25 — [one-line note]
    Problem 4: d/25 — [one-line note]
    Strongest skill: ___
    Worth another look: ___
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this entire report AND your share link to this chat, and submit both
in Canvas for this assignment." End with one genuine sentence of encouragement.

Instructor grading note + rubric (for Canvas)

Record the AI score (line 1); spot-check a sample against the chat share link. The embedded key makes scores consistent across chatbots. Summary rubric (each problem to 25, total 100):

Problem Skill (Objective 8) Full (per-problem)
1 Expected-value calculation + adverse-selection mechanism 25
2 Adverse selection vs. moral hazard classification (timing) 25
3 Quintile table: sum, ratio calculation, positive vs. normative 25
4 Nudge policy: positive/normative labeling + evenhanded reasoning (SLO B) 25

Quality gate (self-checked): P1 EV: ½·800 + ½·200 = 500 ✓; variant ½·600 + ½·100 = 350 ✓; P2 timing classification verified (a = adverse selection PRE; b = moral hazard POST; c = adverse selection PRE; d = moral hazard POST) ✓; P3 sum: 4+9+15+22+50 = 100 ✓; ratio: 50÷4 = 12.5 ✓; variant 45÷6 = 7.5 ✓; P4 labels verified (prediction = positive; "shouldn't" = normative) ✓. No free numeric entry is auto-graded against a single right wording.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 15 Assignment — Asymmetric Information & Inequality (adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
submission_types = [online_text_entry, online_url]
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
submission_note  = "Paste the AI summary report (score on line 1) + the chat share link."
provenance       = "~ Prof. Kessler's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"

~ Prof. Kessler's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com