The Miracle Hangover Cure-Article Free-Samples â€Myassignmenthelp

Question: Discover the Miracle Hangover Cure-Article. Answer: The first assumption is based on transitivity. That implies consumers prefer all options at their choice. Moreover, customers prefer consuming more to less. That is the assumption of non-satiation (Allenby, Kim Rossi, 2015). Lastly, economists have rational preferences for the outcomes. They mainly consider utilities and their wealth values. The assumptions are quite necessary. The first one makes economists think critically and creatively on their choices. They end up choosing decisions which satisfy all their preferred options. Chris, in the article, thinks of consuming more beer, but later remembers using his new PlayStation. Individuals prefer consuming more to derive utility. Chris finds it easy to order the second beer to satisfy his utility. The assumption is significant in that it helps the consumer to balance all his or her choices. As Chris consumes the second bottle, his satisfaction for beer reduces, while he begins to think about going home and playing the PlayStation. Varian, (2014) terms that as the law of diminishing marginal utility, where the more you consume a commodity, the more you get satisfied with it. After some time, the consumer achieves maximum satisfaction and opts to other choices. That balances all his options. Lastly, everyone is always wary of outcomes. Consumers are cautious of effects of their consumption to incomes and values. The young journalist fears to drink more to avoid extra costs. He also fears to get hangovers the following day. Therefore, by evaluating outcomes caused by excessive drinking, the journalist ends up drinking less to save costs and avoid mental illnesses. It is important for people to understand assumptions developed by economists. It assists them to balance their options and choices. Besides, it makes them critical thinkers. They reason a lot of their choices. Finally, it helps them to preserve their incomes by spending less on their chosen portfolios. When one foregoes one choice for another, he or she obtains an opportunity cost. Those are the benefits attributed to non-consumption of a previous option (Chodorow-Reich Karabarbounis, 2016). Chris evaluates between drinking beer and going home to play games. Making that decision grants him numerous benefits. First of all, he escapes the hangovers he would suffer the following day. Also, he would accurately be capable of collecting the stamps. If he drinks only two bottles, he wont be feeling sick. Therefore he would perform his duties actively. Finally, he would also enjoy using his PlayStation when he gets home. If he opted to continue drinking, all those opportunity costs would be foregone. It is true that individuals suffer hangovers by not applying rational models. First of all, hangovers result from excessive beer drinking which is a consumption good. Cynamon Fazzari (2015) say that income is always equivalent to total consumption, individuals investments and their savings. If human beings were rational, they would balance the three effects in a way that they benefit. They could reduce their consumption and dwell more on investing and saving. Reducing consumption, in our case, will mean reduced beer drinking. That creates room for the individual to do other activities effectively. Economists like Chris and the journalists are rational. They think how consuming more beer would cause effects to their other duties. They also evaluate the cost-benefit equation. Most individuals just consume beer until they are totally drunk. They believe maximum utility is obtained when one is completely drunk. Due to lack of rational thinking, they tend to suffer hangovers the following day. They may not be in a position to do their duties as expected. Drinking many results to reduced work performance, bankruptcy, limited careers and loss of friends (Ham, Bacon, Carrigan, Zamboanga Casner, 2016). Economists typically follow five stages in making a rational decisional. Initially, they all have goals. In the article, the journalist wants to avoid hangovers so that he may perform his duties well in the workplace. The same to Chris. Secondly, they always have a criterion of making decisions. They are quick and very creative in formulating decisions. Besides, they are ever considering alternatives which are cheaper to their choices (Hammond, Keeney Raiffa, 2015). Chris considers going home to play with his new machine. Drinking beer and playing games almost yield to same satisfaction- relaxing the mind and getting entertained. The fourth stage is task analysis. They value different concepts, models, and theories (Ford, Richardson, 2013). Here, they think among the chosen portfolios, which one suits them most. Both Chris and the Journalist consider the cost-benefit concept. Finally, a final decision is made after the analysis. Chris thinks gives up the third beer and goes home. The journalist also fears to get hangovers as well as spending much on beer. She also leaves Opera bar and goes home. The article can work in theory but may never work in real-life or practical. Beer is quite expensive for low and medium-income earners. However, the commodity is cheaper for high-income earners. Economists use the cost-benefit model to avoid excessive drinking. This concept will only work theoretically. Practically, wealthy people, who drink, may not consume little beer for the sake of saving. They already have substantial incomes and will drink till they are satisfied. Secondly, in some cases, beer is termed as a drug abuse which may be addictive to the user. At this case, the users experience reverse effects. The economists want people to drink less so that they evade hangovers. However, addicted alcoholics suffer tremors, convulsions and general body fatigue (Norouzi, Carver, Dear, Bromberg, Gray, Kahan Borgundvaag, 2017). They have to take the drink to relieve them. This will be contrary to the economists. Therefore, their idea can only work in theory but not practical. References Allenby, G. M., Kim, J., Rossi, P. E. (2015). Economic Models of Choice. Chodorow-Reich, G., Karabarbounis, L. (2016). The cyclicality of the opportunity cost ofEmployment. Journal of Political Economy, 124(6), 1563-1618. Cynamon, B. Z., Fazzari, S. M. (2015). Household income, demand, and saving: Deriving macro data with micro data concepts. Review of Income and Wealth. Ford, R. C., Richardson, W. D. (2013). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical Literature. In Citation classics from the Journal of Business Ethics (pp. 19-44). Springer Netherlands. Ham, L. S., Bacon, A. K., Carrigan, M. H., Zamboanga, B. L., Casner, H. G. (2016). Social anxiety and alcohol use: The role of alcohol expectancies about social outcomes. Addiction Research Theory, 24(1), 9-16. Hammond, J., Keeney, R., Raiffa, H. (2015). Smart choices: A practical guide to making Better decisions. Harvard Business Review Press. Norouzi, N., Carver, S., Dear, T., Bromberg, S., Gray, S., Kahan, M., Borgundvaag, B. (2017). Evaluation of alcohol intoxication and withdrawal syndromes based on analysis of tremor signals. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 33, 83-87. Varian, H. R. (2014). Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach: Ninth International Student Edition. WW Norton Company.