Economics Case Study Paper

Microeconomic 106 Project

Dimensions Exemplary Competent Unacceptable

Classification of Company

▪ Market Model chosen reflected characteristics of the company chosen.

▪ Narrative format of characteristics clearly defined.

▪ Industry problem well-thought out.

▪ Correct Market Model

▪ selected to represent the company.

▪ Explanation of Market Model complete.

▪ Industry problem short and not well-thought out

▪ Incorrect Market Model selected to represent the company.

▪ Explanation of Market Model incomplete.

▪ Industry problem not stated.

Demand Curve ▪ Axes and Demand Curve correctly

labeled.

▪ Demand curve had the correct shape.

▪ Curve shifted in the correct direction, or was clearly indicated, if the curve did not shift (movement along curve).

▪ New Demand Curve or point along curve correctly labeled.

▪ Explanations clearly given for the Demand situation.

▪ Axes not labeled correctly.

▪ Demand Curve not correctly labeled.

▪ Demand curve does not have the correct shape.

▪ Curves did not shift in the correct direction or it was not indicated, if the curve did not shift.

▪ New Demand Curve or point along curve not correctly labeled.

▪ Description of graph very short and incomplete.

▪ It was not clear why the curve had shifted.

▪ No labels.

▪ No Demand Curve.

Supply Curve ▪ Axes and Supply Curve correctly labeled.

▪ All abbreviations clearly labeled.

▪ The curve had the correct shape.

▪ The curve shifted in the correct direction.

▪ Axes not labeled correctly.

▪ Supply Curve not correctly labeled.

▪ The Supply Curve does not have the correct shape.

▪ The curves did not shift in the correct direction or it was not indicated, if the curve did not shift.

▪ No labels.

▪ No Supply Curve.

Microeconomic 106 Project

▪ It was clearly indicated, if the curve did not shift.

▪ Explanations were clearly given for the Supply situation.

▪ New Supply Curve or point along curve not correctly labeled.

▪ Description of graph very short and incomplete.

▪ It was not clear why the curve had shifted.

Supply and Demand Curves Together

▪ All axes, Demand and Supply Curves correctly labeled.

▪ Old and new equilibrium prices and quantities clearly labeled.

▪ Curves had correct shapes.

▪ Curves shifted in the correct directions.

▪ It was clearly indicated, if the curves did not shift.

▪ Explanations clearly given for Supply and Demand situations.

▪ Type of good clearly stated and defined.

▪ Relationship to a different good clearly stated.

▪ Either the Supply Curve or Demand Curve did not have the correct shape.

▪ Curves did not shift in the correct direction.

▪ It was not indicated, if the curves did not shift.

▪ Old and new equilibrium prices and quantities not labeled correctly.

▪ Type of good stated not correct.

▪ Relationship to a different good is not correct.

▪ Either Supply Curve or Demand Curve missing.

▪ Old and new equilibrium prices not labeled.

▪ Type of good not stated.

▪ Relationship to a different good not stated.

Short Run

Profit & Loss ▪ Four appropriate curves drawn.

▪ Curves had correct shapes.

▪ Curves indicated the appropriate profit/loss position of the firm.

▪ Explanation of profit/loss position in short-run correct and thorough.

▪ Cost/productivity issues addressed.

▪ Four appropriate curves not drawn.

▪ Curves did not have correct shapes.

▪ Curves did not indicate an appropriate profit/loss position of the firm.

▪ Explanation of profit/loss position in short-run incorrect.

▪ Cost/productivity issues not addressed.

▪ No short run profit/loss curves.

Microeconomic 106 Project

Long Run Profit & Loss

▪ Four appropriate curves were drawn.

▪ Curves had the correct shapes.

▪ Curves indicated the appropriate profit/loss position of the firm.

▪ Explanation of profit/loss position in the long-run was correct and thorough.

▪ Cost/productivity issues were addressed.

▪ Four appropriate curves were not drawn.

▪ Curves did not have the correct shapes.

▪ Curves did not indicate the appropriate profit/loss position of the firm.

▪ Explanation of profit/loss position in the long-run was incorrect.

▪ Cost/productivity issues were not addressed.

▪ No long run profit/ loss curves.

LRATC ▪ LRATC Curve correctly drawn (shape) and correctly labeled.

▪ Economies and Diseconomies of Scale clearly indicated.

▪ Company’s position marked with an “X” on LRATC.

▪ Explanation for the position (“X”) was correct and thorough.

▪ The LRATC Curve is incorrectly drawn (shape) and incorrectly labeled.

▪ Economies and Diseconomies of Scale not drawn correctly.

▪ Company’s position incorrectly marked on LRATC.

▪ Explanation of the position (“X”) was incorrect.

▪ No LRATC Curve.

▪ Economies and Diseconomies of Scale were not drawn.

Conclusion ▪ Recapitulation of findings clearly stated.

▪ Solutions to economic problems are well-thought out.

▪ Predictions of the company's future are well-supported.

▪ Recapitulation of findings vague.

▪ Solutions to economic problems not fully addressed.

▪ Predictions of the company's future are supported.

▪ No recapitulation of findings

▪ Solutions to economic problems ignored.

▪ Predictions of the company's future not stated or supported.

Company Analysis ▪ Case typed and at least two pages.

▪ Six graphs drawn and fully explained.

▪ Writing clear, flowed well, and easy to follow; contained no grammatical errors or typos.

▪ Information well organized and

▪ Case typed, but less than two pages.

▪ Six graphs drawn but not fully explained.

▪ Writing unclear and difficult to follow; contained several grammatical errors and/or typos.

▪ Case not typed.

▪ Less than six graphs drawn.

▪ Writing unclear and could not be followed; contained major grammatical errors and/or typos.

Microeconomic 106 Project

well-constructed, major topic headings used to organize information into categories that clearly displayed the content.

▪ Article or interview thorough and included with the case.

▪ Information not well organized and while major topic headings were used, they failed to organize information into the categories that clearly displayed the content.

▪ Article or interview not thorough and included with the case.

▪ Information really unorganized and major topic headings not used to organize information into categories that clearly displayed the content.

▪ Article or interview not included with the case.

g