Fall 2007 Prelim Answers and Comments

Fall 2007 Prelim - Comments and answers to the Prelim General comments For each question there were a few factors that were absolutely essential to

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Comments and answers to the Prelim: General comments: For each question there were a few factors that were absolutely essential to a good  answer.  Those are largely the ones Professor Hay discussed in class.  The exams that got  higher marks tended to either consider additional implications of the problem, or describe the  way the answers worked with greater clarity and detail than other answers.  The answers below  list many of the important issues, however a variety of other issues were raised on some exams,  and they generally received credit where they demonstrated sound economic logic.  The  answers below are not meant to be either complete or comprehensive, but rather to give you an  idea of what the most important features of a good answer were, and what some of the issues  your classmates raised are.   In some cases, the answers clearly did not appear to answer the question.  It is essential  to read the question properly, and answer the question asked.  None of the questions really  called for a discussion of cases from class.  Although they may be useful to illustrate a point,  describing the content of a case accurately is not responsive to the question.  Finally, clarity is  important in answers.  Two answers with identical content may still receive different marks if one  answer was clearer than the other.   The averages for the questions are as follows: Q1 Q2 Q3 Exam Average 5.6 6.2 6.2 18.1 St. Dev. 2.0 2.5 1.8 3.7 Question 1: This question had the lowest average of all the questions.  The primary reason for the  lower marks was that some exams got the answer outright wrong (saying that Lee was not  entitled to damages), and many did not go in to enough detail to explain their reasoning. Edwards has trespassed on Lee’s land.  Therefore, he owes Lee damages in the  amount that he would have paid had they had a fair negotiation.  The damages should not  include damages for the hotel for a couple reasons.  First, the hotel and other operations did not 
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
exist at the time of the hypothetical negotiation, and would not have been subject to it.  Second,  that if we did allow Lee to collect damages for that, he would have an incentive to watch what 
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 12/11/2007 for the course ECON 4040 taught by Professor Hay during the Fall '07 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 4

Fall 2007 Prelim - Comments and answers to the Prelim General comments For each question there were a few factors that were absolutely essential to

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online