Jackson says that his fifth game of chess gave him greater utility than his first, and therefore the law of diminishing marginal utility does not hold. An economist who believes that marginal utility definitely and always declines with the consumption of equal successive units of a good will likely say:

Question

Business

Guest

22 June, 16:19

Jackson says that his fifth game of chess gave him greater utility than his first, and therefore the law of diminishing marginal utility does not hold. An economist who believes that marginal utility definitely and always declines with the consumption of equal successive units of a good will likely say:

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Dominick Pena · Answer 1

the fifth game of chess is a different good than the first game of chess.

Explanation:

In this scenario Jackson says that the fifth game of chess gave him more utility than the first game he played. This goes against the law of diminishing marginal utility which states that the utility a consumer gains from consuming a good diminishes as more of the good is consumed.

The logical explanation an economist will give is that the fifth game was a different product than the first game. So the utility between the products are different.

In such a situation it is possible that the utility from the fifth game is higher than that of the first game