answer should not be copied from any websites.

Two economists are attending a conference in an unfamiliar city. At the end of the day, Economist A states she is "in the mood for a high-quality dinner" and wanders through the centre of the city looking for a restaurant. After narrowing her search to two fine-dining establishments located on the same block, she ultimately selects the restaurant with the higher prices. Assume you are Economist B and choose to go to a one-price all-you-can-eat buffet nearby. Using economic theory, what might account for the difference in behaviour between Economist A and you (assuming cost is not an issue)? How would you go about maximizing your utility compared to Economist A? Next year when you both return to an economics conference in the same city, which of the two restaurants do you think has a higher chance of not being there anymore? Explain.

Sources which can be useful

Lam, B. (2014, December 27). The economists who studied all-you-can-eat buffets.The Atlantic.https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/the-economists-who-studied-all-you-can-eat-buffets/384033/

Ozimek, A. (2012, May 23). The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets.Forbes.https://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2012/05/23/the-economics-of-all-you-can-eat-buffets/#7eb6e1e81d6a

Schwartz, E. (2015). All-you-can-eat buffet economics.Econlife.https://econlife.com/2015/01/diminishing-marginal-utility-of-pizza-at-a-lunch-buffet/