Microeconomics Case Paper

Microeconomics Case Analysis Paper Length: Paper: 4 - 6 double-spaced pages Due: Week 3 by Sunday Midnight Value: 250 Points for 25% of the grade Post: Week 3 Assignments

Assignment Guidelines Analyze and submit through Turnitin as a Microsoft Word document the Microeconomics Case posted in Week 3 Assignments, and prepare a 4 - 6 page paper that uses 2 ore more sources, adheres to APA standards and addresses the following:

• For each of the four options, identify three (3) potential economic impacts on Petrolo considering both possible benefits and downsides, and implications for Petrolo’s government and citizens.

• Based on your analysis and research, make one or more specific recommendations to address the issue.

Evaluation Criteria for HRM Application Paper

Paper Elements Exemplary

Proficient Developing Emerging

Option 1: Stop Drilling

40 – 36 Accurately identifies 3 potential economic impacts considering both benefits and downsides of stopping drilling. Fully discusses the implications of this option.

35 - 31 Fairly accurately identifies 3 potential economic impacts considering both benefits and downsides of stopping drilling; 1 analysis is incorrect or lacks substance. Discusses implications

30 - 26 Identifies 2 – 3 potential economic impacts but may not consider benefits and/or downsides of stopping drilling; 2 analyses may be incorrect, lack substance or missing. May not discuss implications.

25 - 0 Limited if any valid identification of economic impacts of this option. Does not discuss the implications

Option 2: Continue Drilling

40 – 36 Accurately identifies 3 potential economic impacts considering both benefits and downsides of continuing drilling. Fully discusses the implications of this option.

35 - 31 Fairly accurately identifies 3 potential economic impacts considering both benefits and downsides of continuing drilling; 1 analysis is incorrect or lacks substance. Discusses implications

30 - 26 Identifies 2 – 3 potential economic impacts but may not consider benefits and/or downsides of continuing drilling; 2 analyses are incorrect, lack substance or missing. May not discuss t implications

25 - 0 Limited if any valid identification of economic impacts of this option. Does not discuss the implications

Option 3: Offshore Licensees

40 – 36 Accurately identifies 3 potential economic impacts considering both benefits and downsides of offering offshore licenses. Fully discusses the implications of this option.

35 - 31 Fairly accurately identifies 3 potential economic impacts considering both benefits and downsides of offering offshore licenses; 1 analysis is incorrect or lacks substance. Discusses

30 - 26 Identifies 2 – 3 potential economic impacts but may not consider benefits and/or downsides of offering offshore licenses; 2 analyses are incorrect, lack substance or missing. May not discuss the implications

25 - 0 Limited if any valid identification of economic impacts of this option. Does not discuss the implications

implications Option 4: Leisure Venue

40 – 36 Accurately identifies 3 potential economic impacts considering both benefits and downsides of creating a leisure venue. Fully discusses the implications of this option.

35 - 31 Fairly accurately identifies 3 potential economic impacts considering benefits and downsides of creating a leisure venue; 1 analysis is incorrect or lacks substance. Discusses implications

30 - 26 Identifies 2 – 3 potential economic impacts but may not consider benefits and/or downsides of creating a leisure venue; 2 analyses are incorrect, lack substance or missing. May not discuss implications

25 - 0 Limited if any valid identification of economic impacts of this option. Does not discuss the implications

Recommendation

45 - 41 Provides a specific and clear recommendation(s) based on accurate analysis of options. Comprehensively considers relevant factors beyond the data given in the case summary to draw conclusions and recommend action. Solution offered is viable and effective.

40 - 36 Provides fairly clear and specific recommendation(s) based on fairly accurate analysis of options. Considers relevant factors beyond the data given in the case to draw conclusions and recommend action. Solution offered is fairly viable and effective.

35 - 31 Provides general recommendation(s) somewhat based on analysis of options. . Seldom considers relevant factors beyond the data given in the case summary to draw conclusions and recommend action. Solution may resolve some but not all issues.

30 - 0 Limited if recommendations made. Does not consider relevant factors beyond the data given in the case summary to draw conclusions and make recommendations. Solution if offered may not be viable.

APA 5 Uses 2 or more sources, headers and accurately adheres to APA standards; reference page and citations are correct. All sources listed in References are cited in paper

4 Uses 2 sources, headers and adheres to APA standards; reference page and citations are correct with minor (1-3) errors. . All sources listed in References are cited in paper

3 Uses 1 - 2 sources. May use headers and somewhat adheres to APA standards; the work of others is cited but with numerous (4 – 10) errors. Sources listed in References and citations may not match

1 - 0 Uses 0 – 2 sources. Limited adherence to APA standards in the paper and Reference page; work of others may be cited but with multiple (11+) errors. Sources listed in References and citations do not match

Writing Mechanics

40 – 36 Paper is logical and well-written. Spelling, grammar and punctuation are accurate. Paper is the required length of 4- 6 pages of content, and includes a correctly prepared title page.

35 - 31 Paper is fairly logical and well-written. Minor (1 – 3) errors in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation. The content may be 5% too long or short; includes a correctly prepared title page.

35 - 31 Paper is somewhat clear but with several (4 – 10) errors in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation. Content may be 10% too long or short; and may not include a correctly prepared title page

30 - 0 The paper lacks clarity and may be confusing. Contain numerous (11+) errors in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation. The content may be 15% too long or short, and may not include a title page