An assumption audit ends the model work of ECON 1002 in Week 10 by listing what one earlier analysis took for granted, rating each condition and saying what changes when one fails. Searches like "econ 1002 week 10 assignment example", "econ1002 week 10 sample" and "econ 1002 week 10 example" land here.
What a finished ECON 1002 Week 10 assumption audit looks like
A table sits at the center: five assumptions as rows, with columns for what the assumption says, how well it holds for secondhand bicycles, and what changes if it fails. Ceteris paribus comes first, and the audit notes that the start of term, the weather and a new bike lane all arrived together. Rational choice follows, then full information, where hidden wear on chains and bearings means buyers cannot judge quality from a photograph. Identical goods is rated weakest on paper but least damaging in practice. The longest discussion goes to loss aversion. Kahneman and Tversky are credited for the finding that a loss is felt more strongly than a gain of the same size, and the audit applies it to sellers who price against what they paid, leaving listings unsold above the market price.
How a ECON 1002 Week 10 example is structured
The table comes before any discussion so the audit's scope is visible at once: five rows, no more, each chosen because the week-two prediction leaned on it. Row order mirrors the order in which the model introduces each condition, which lets a reader match each one to the earlier paper without searching. Ratings use three plain words, holds, strained and fails, instead of a numerical score the audit could not justify. Below the table, discussion keeps that order, but their length tracks importance rather than position, so loss aversion gets the most space although it arrives last. Behavioral economics enters there and nowhere else, so the finding never passes for a general attack on the model. The verdict states whether the original prediction survives, which it largely does for price and less well for how quickly bicycles sell.
Five rows, one earlier prediction
Each assumption in the table is one the week-two bicycle analysis relied on, so the audit tests real work rather than the model in general.
Other things did not hold still
Term start, weather and a new bike lane moved together, which strains ceteris paribus and makes the original demand shift harder to isolate.
What a photograph cannot show
Worn chains and tired bearings are invisible to buyers, so full information is rated strained and its effect on prices explained.
Sellers who remember what they paid
Loss aversion, credited to Kahneman and Tversky, explains asking prices that sit above the market and listings that stay up for weeks.
A verdict with two halves
The price prediction largely survives; the prediction about how fast bicycles change hands does not, and the audit says as much.
Where marks go in ECON 1002 Week 10
Audits that list assumptions without rating them read as a glossary, and the analysis credit stays unclaimed. The rubric pays for judgment: saying which condition matters most for this market, and why, is what separates an audit from a list copied out of the chapter. Kahneman and Tversky earn marks when loss aversion is applied to a specific behavior, sellers holding out above the going price, not when the names appear in a paragraph about human irrationality in general. The audit is also expected to return to a real earlier prediction; an audit of the model in the abstract misses the task. Overreach costs points too, since declaring the model useless because one assumption fails ignores that most of its prediction still holds for this market.
Get a ECON 1002 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Send the audit prompt and rubric together with the earlier analysis you are auditing, and the assumptions are drawn from that paper and rated against your market, 24 to 48 hours, the first free. Every seller and buyer in this audit is a composite, and no asking price came from an actual listing.
ECON 1002 Week 10 questions, answered
How many assumptions should the audit cover?
Four to six usually serve, chosen because the earlier analysis actually depended on them. The example audits five. Covering every assumption in the chapter tends to thin the discussion until none is examined properly. If your prompt lists the assumptions to address, those govern, and the audit still benefits from saying which of them matters most for the market in question.
Does behavioral economics mean the standard model is wrong?
Not in the example's reading. Loss aversion shows that one assumption, sellers weighing gains and losses evenly, breaks in one identifiable way, and the audit traces what that changes: slower sales and sticky asking prices. The model's price prediction mostly survives. Treating behavioral findings as a refutation of supply and demand overstates them, and graders usually mark that overreach in your feedback.
Do I need to cite Kahneman and Tversky directly?
Citing their work for its central idea, that losses are felt more strongly than equivalent gains, is enough at this level, and the course text often provides the reference. The example names them once, where loss aversion is applied. Quoting at length, or attaching page numbers you have not checked, adds risk without adding marks.