ECO2150 · Module 6 · Interpreting Economic Models
60%
Exercises weight
40%
Performance task weight
undergrad
Degree level
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Correctly solves for equilibrium price and quantity within defined tolerances (P: ±$0.01; Q: ±2 thousand bottles); accurately calculates consumer surplus, producer surplus, and deadweight loss using the correct welfare area formulas; correctly identifies the $0.30/$0.30 tax incidence split with algebraic justification referencing equal supply and demand slopes.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
Equilibrium calculation correct within tolerance; at least two of three welfare areas (CS, PS, DWL) calculated correctly; incidence split identified correctly but algebraic derivation contains a minor arithmetic error that does not indicate a conceptual misunderstanding.
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
Equilibrium calculation contains an error that propagates to welfare areas; at least one welfare area calculated correctly; tax incidence analysis attempted but the split is incorrect or the reasoning is circular.
Does Not Meet (<70%)
Unable to solve for equilibrium or equilibrium answer is outside tolerance with no correct method shown; welfare area calculations absent or fundamentally incorrect (e.g., wrong geometric formula); tax incidence analysis absent.
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Policy interpretation correctly connects the welfare calculations to the allocative efficiency implications of the Hartwell City excise tax; explains the government intervention trade-off (revenue generated vs. deadweight loss) with reference to the specific calculated figures; identifies the equity implication of the symmetric incidence split for consumers and producers.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
Policy interpretation mostly correct; connects welfare findings to allocative efficiency but misses one key implication (e.g., does not address the government revenue effect or the equity dimension of the symmetric split).
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
Policy interpretation is directionally correct but superficial — names the welfare effects without explaining their significance to the Hartwell City government's decision; no reference to the specific calculated figures.
Does Not Meet (<70%)
Policy interpretation absent or incorrect; cannot connect welfare calculations to government intervention evaluation; analysis restates the scenario without interpretation.
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Constructs an independent argument about the policy's net effect that goes beyond restating the welfare area calculations — e.g., identifies a distributional concern, an elasticity-related implication not made explicit in the scenario, or a comparison to an alternative instrument (e.g., subsidy); argument is grounded in the specific Hartwell City data.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
Some independent framing present; argument goes slightly beyond restating the model outputs but relies on the scenario's framing for structure.
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
Written response restates the scenario's conclusions without constructing an independent argument; no original analytical position taken; policy evaluation is descriptive.
Does Not Meet (<70%)
No independent argument constructed; response is a transcript of the quantitative steps without interpretive synthesis; no policy position or evaluative claim.
Canvas import
Canvas does not support direct rubric CSV import. Use this view to manually create the rubric in Canvas, or download the JSON above for programmatic creation via the Canvas API.