In 50 minutes,read this excerpt from the book "The Undercover Economist" by Tim Harford (2007)Download read this excerpt from the book "The Undercover Economist" by Tim Harford (2007)and write a response to the article (200 words). Make sure you start with a summary of the article and then proceed to explain your own opinion about the author's arguments.

In the summary part, youshould accurately summarize what the author argues in the article without presenting your own opinion or ideas. In the response part, you need to critique the article and add your own ideas. In particular,discuss the different practices exposed by the author in terms of efficacy for firms, efficiency from a collective point of view, and feasibility.You must substantiate your arguments with examples or references.

An example of the workflow when you write a reading response can be found here:Writing Reading Response Essays - Student workbook.pdfDownload Writing Reading Response Essays - Student workbook.pdf.Templates for argumentative writing can be found in thelibrary writing resources.

All references need to be acknowledged using APA style.

Save some time for self-editing and uploading your file. Late submissions are not accepted. Write your work in Word or Libre Office, Times New Roman font, and upload your work in the pdf format.

You will be graded based on the following criteria:

1. The title and author's name are accurately presented using APA style
2. The summary of the article is presented accurately and coherently
3. The Economic concepts discussed in the article are clearly mentioned and explained
4. All the key arguments in the article are covered while details are skipped
5. The response to the article has a logical flow
6. The critique of the article is logical and professional
7. Ideas are presented with logic and evidence
8. Counter arguments to the ideas are presented
9. There is a conclusion
10. Grammar, spelling, and punctuation are accurate
11. A range of sentence structures and vocabulary is used.

Extract from "go figure" in the Undercover Economist by Tim Harford [...] The only coffee provider beside the London Eye wields plenty of scarcity power over the customer. [..] Their landlords have rented out some of this scarcity value to a coffee bar, just like the owners of Manhattan's skyscrapers, or railway stations from Waterloo to Shinjuku. Scarcity is for rent - at the right price. But how should the bar's managers exploit the scarcity they are renting from the London Eye? They could simply raise the price of a cappuccino from E1.75 to E3. Some people would pay it, but many would not. Alternatively, they could cut prices and sell much more coffee. They could cover wages and ingredients by charging as little as 60p (60 pence) a cup. But unless they were able to increase their sales dozens of times over, they'd not make enough to cover their rent. That's the dilemma: higher margins per cup, but fover cups; or lower margins on more cups. It would be nice to side-step that dilemma, by charging 6op (60 pence) to people who are not willing to pay more and E3 to people who are willing to pay a lot to enjoy the coffee and the view. That way they would have the high margins whenever they could get them, and still sell coffee at a small profit to the skinflints. How to do it, though? Have a price list saying, "Cappuccino, 23, unless you're only willing to pay 6op"? [... ] In fact, any well-run business would seek to charge each customer the maximum price he'd be willing to pay - and they do. There are three common strategies for finding customers who are cavalier about price. The first is what economists call "first-degree price discrimination", but we could call it the "unique target" strategy: to evaluate each customer as an individual and charge according to how much he or she is willing to pay. This is the strategy of the used-car salesman or the estate agent. It usually takes skill and a lot of effort. Now, however, companies are trying to automate the process of evaluating individual customers to reduce the time it takes to do so. For instance, supermarkets accumulate evidence of what you're willing to pay by giving you "discount cards", which are needed to take advantage of sale prices. In return for getting a lower price on certain items, you allow the stores to keep records of what you buy and then in turn offer you vouchers for discounts on products. It doesn't work perfectly, because supermarkets can only send "money off" vouchers, not "money on" vouchers. "Money on" vouchers have never been a success. The second approach, the "group target" strategy ("third-degree price discrimination"), is to offer different prices to members of distinct groups. Who could complain about reduced bus fares for children and the elderly? Surely it must be reasonable for coffee shops to offer a discount to people who work nearby, and for tourist attractions to let locals in for a lower rate? For instance, when Disney World in Florida offer admission discounts of more than 50 per cent to local people, they're not making a statement about the grinding poverty of the Sunshine State.Extract from "go figure" in the Undercover Economist by Tim Harford [...] The only coffee provider beside the London Eye wields plenty of scarcity power over the customer. [..] Their landlords have rented out some of this scarcity value to a coffee bar, just like the owners of Manhattan's skyscrapers, or railway stations from Waterloo to Shinjuku. Scarcity is for rent - at the right price. But how should the bar's managers exploit the scarcity they are renting from the London Eye? They could simply raise the price of a cappuccino from E1.75 to E3. Some people would pay it, but many would not. Alternatively, they could cut prices and sell much more coffee. They could cover wages and ingredients by charging as little as 60p (60 pence) a cup. But unless they were able to increase their sales dozens of times over, they'd not make enough to cover their rent. That's the dilemma: higher margins per cup, but fover cups; or lower margins on more cups. It would be nice to side-step that dilemma, by charging 6op (60 pence) to people who are not willing to pay more and E3 to people who are willing to pay a lot to enjoy the coffee and the view. That way they would have the high margins whenever they could get them, and still sell coffee at a small profit to the skinflints. How to do it, though? Have a price list saying, "Cappuccino, 23, unless you're only willing to pay 6op"? [... ] In fact, any well-run business would seek to charge each customer the maximum price he'd be willing to pay - and they do. There are three common strategies for finding customers who are cavalier about price. The first is what economists call "first-degree price discrimination", but we could call it the "unique target" strategy: to evaluate each customer as an individual and charge according to how much he or she is willing to pay. This is the strategy of the used-car salesman or the estate agent. It usually takes skill and a lot of effort. Now, however, companies are trying to automate the process of evaluating individual customers to reduce the time it takes to do so. For instance, supermarkets accumulate evidence of what you're willing to pay by giving you "discount cards", which are needed to take advantage of sale prices. In return for getting a lower price on certain items, you allow the stores to keep records of what you buy and then in turn offer you vouchers for discounts on products. It doesn't work perfectly, because supermarkets can only send "money off" vouchers, not "money on" vouchers. "Money on" vouchers have never been a success. The second approach, the "group target" strategy ("third-degree price discrimination"), is to offer different prices to members of distinct groups. Who could complain about reduced bus fares for children and the elderly? Surely it must be reasonable for coffee shops to offer a discount to people who work nearby, and for tourist attractions to let locals in for a lower rate? For instance, when Disney World in Florida offer admission discounts of more than 50 per cent to local people, they're not making a statement about the grinding poverty of the Sunshine State