Best for
The 20-minute scenario analysis in Lesson 5, in groups of three.
Economic reasoning • Years 7–8 • Unit 10 Week 5
Trade-off Decision Scenarios
Three households, three kinds of constraint. The same idea — scarcity forces a choice — but the choices are not equally hard, and that inequality is what this sheet is really about.
Free to teach tomorrow, adaptable to your rohe
The three scenarios are ready to use. Te Wānanga is useful when you want scenarios built around your own community's cost of living and food access.
- Rewrite the scenarios using your local supermarket prices and transport realities.
- Add a fourth scenario for a rural or island community.
- Save an adapted Unit 10 scenario set in My Kete.
Kaiako planning snapshot
- Use length: 20 minutes analysis, plus 15 minutes for the comparison discussion.
- Grouping: Threes, one scenario each, then whole class.
- Prep: One copy per group, or one per student if you want the writing collected.
- Teaching move: Ask “could this household have chosen differently?” Scenario B is the one where the honest answer is no.
What this sheet already gives you
- Three contrasting Aotearoa household scenarios
- The trade-off / opportunity cost / constraint frame
- An analysis table for each scenario
- A cross-scenario comparison task
- A written synthesis prompt on unequal burden
Students often say the Wellington household in Scenario C has “no real problem”. That is worth sitting with: having a trade-off that is only about preference is itself a form of security.
Ngā Whāinga Ako / Learning Intentions
- We are learning to define opportunity cost and apply it to a food decision.
- We are learning to compare how the same scarcity creates different trade-offs for different households.
- We are learning to explain why some households face harder choices than others.
Ngā Paearu Angitū / Success Criteria
- I can define opportunity cost in my own words with a food example.
- I can identify the trade-off, the opportunity cost and the constraint in my scenario.
- I can explain why the same scarcity creates an unequal burden across the three households.
The framework
Trade-off: choosing A means not choosing B.
Opportunity cost: the value of B that you gave up.
Constraint: the reason you could not have both.
Scenario A — South Auckland
A Pasifika whānau of six in South Auckland has $180 a week for food. Fresh fruit costs about $12 a kilo. Instant noodles cost about $0.50 a serve. They need around 30 serves a week.
| Question | Your answer |
|---|---|
| What is the trade-off between nutrition and cost? | |
| What is the opportunity cost of choosing noodles? | |
| What is the constraint? | |
| Could this whānau realistically choose differently? |
Scenario B — Gisborne after Cyclone Gabrielle
A single-parent household in Gisborne after Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023. Roads are cut. Fresh food is unavailable for ten days. The pantry has canned goods.
| Question | Your answer |
|---|---|
| What is the trade-off here? | |
| What is the opportunity cost? | |
| What is the constraint — and how is it different from Scenario A? | |
| Could money solve this constraint? |
Scenario C — Wellington
A Pākehā household in Wellington has $400 a week for food. They want to buy organic and local, which costs noticeably more than the supermarket equivalent.
| Question | Your answer |
|---|---|
| What is the trade-off? | |
| What is the opportunity cost? | |
| What is the constraint? | |
| Is this the same kind of problem as Scenario A? Why or why not? |
Compare all three
All three households face scarcity. Rank them from the hardest trade-off to the easiest, and justify your ranking in two or three sentences.
| Rank | Scenario | Why you ranked it here |
|---|---|---|
| 1 (hardest) | ____ | |
| 2 | ____ | |
| 3 (easiest) | ____ |
Who bears the burden?
The same national food prices produced three very different problems. In three or four sentences, explain why scarcity does not fall equally — and name one structural cause behind that inequality, using the idea you built in Lesson 4.