Describe An Investment Decision You Have Made And What Were ✓ Solved

Describe an investment decision you have made and what were t

Describe an investment decision you have made and what were the considerations, obstacles, and biases that you considered before making the investment: Examples could be the following: investing in a car, home, boat, business, education, books, tools, jewelry, or expensive clothing, and so forth.

2. Give an example of in-group favoritism from which you have benefited.

3. Define and discuss the concepts presumption, burden of proof, and prima facie case. (Make sure you cite and reference your definitions).

4. What are the questions that should be answered in preparation for presenting a case to specific decision makers?

5. a. Take a narrative statement of a position on any issue.

b. See how many different ways the information could be structured into a case, using the various sequences presented in the text: chain of reasoning, problem solution, criteria, and/or comparative advantages.

c. Cite your reference

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction and decision context. The investment decision examined here is launching a small, home-based online tutoring service aimed at high school students in need of flexible, affordable support. The decision to pursue this venture arose from observed demand for remote tutoring, personal interest in education, and the relatively modest upfront costs of equipment and software. I evaluated the opportunity through the lens of managerial decision making theories that emphasize bounded rationality and the role of biases in judgment (Simon, 1957; Bazerman & Moore, 2013). The core considerations included upfront capital, monthly cash flow, time commitment, market competition, and the potential for scalable impact. Anticipated obstacles included market saturation in some subjects, customer acquisition costs, and the need to establish a credible reputation quickly. Biases encountered included optimism bias, sunk-cost considerations if initial customer acquisition lagged, and availability bias toward successful online tutoring platforms I had recently read about. The analysis draws on established decision-making frameworks that encourage explicit problem framing, option generation, and evidence-based evaluation to mitigate cognitive biases (Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 1999; Bazerman & Moore, 2013).

In-group favoritism example. Within the project team, I benefited from in-group favoritism when a trusted colleague advocated internally for a specific instructional platform and content partner. This alignment reduced perceived risk and accelerated vendor onboarding, illustrating how social identities influence decision momentum. The phenomenon aligns with social identity theory, which posits that group affiliations shape preferences and evaluations (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). While this can facilitate cohesion and efficiency, it also highlights the need for explicit evaluation criteria to counterbalance potential biases that favor familiar providers (Janis, 1972; Cialdini, 2009).

Definitions of presumption, burden of proof, and prima facie. In decision-making and legal contexts, presumption is an accepted assumption that remains true until evidence to the contrary is presented (Black's Law Dictionary, 11th ed.). The burden of proof is the obligation to establish the truth of a claim to persuade the decision-maker (Bazerman & Moore, 2013). A prima facie case refers to evidence that, on its face, suffices to establish a given claim unless rebutted (Black's Law Dictionary, 11th ed.). These concepts support disciplined evaluation by ensuring that initial assumptions are clearly stated, the proof required is defined, and opposing evidence is considered before reaching a conclusion (Bazerman & Moore, 2013; Black's Law Dictionary, 11th ed.).

Questions to answer for case preparation. When presenting a case to decision makers, key questions should include: What is the core objective and expected value of the investment? What are the primary and secondary alternatives, and why are they viable or less favorable? What are the quantified risks, uncertainties, and their probability ranges? What metrics will define success (ROI, break-even horizon, payback period, social impact)? What are the time horizon, liquidity constraints, and potential opportunity costs? Who are the stakeholders, and how will the decision affect them? What are the ethical, legal, and reputational considerations? What information is required to persuade, and what data is available to support it? These questions align with structured decision analysis approaches that emphasize clear criteria and rigorous evidence (Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 1999; Bazerman & Moore, 2013).

Narrative statement of position. My position is that a focused, low-capital online tutoring venture, anchored by a clear niche (e.g., SAT/ACT prep or STEM support for under-resourced students) and a phased rollout, represents a prudent balance of risk and reward for an individual with limited starting capital. The narrative rests on the premise that scalable digital delivery can yield sustainable revenue within 12–18 months if customer acquisition is targeted and cost-effective. This stance is supported by decision-quality frameworks that favor progressive commitment, incremental pilots, and evidence-based refinement (Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 1999; Bazerman & Moore, 2013). The approach integrates rigorous evaluation of alternatives, avoiding premature commitment to unverified suppliers, and emphasizes learning by doing to reduce uncertainty.

Structure options for presenting the case. There are multiple valid ways to structure the information as a case study. Chain of reasoning can be used to present a logical progression from problem framing to proposed solution, with each step backed by evidence (Bazerman & Moore, 2013). Problem-solution structure can define the issue, explore constraints, and present recommended actions. Criteria-based structuring requires listing decision criteria, weighting them, and showing how alternatives perform against them. Comparative advantages compares the chosen option to alternatives on key dimensions such as cost, scalability, and risk. Each structure has merits; using more than one can improve transparency and facilitate stakeholder buy-in (Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 1999).

Conclusion. The assignment highlights the interplay between rational analysis and human factors in decision making. By describing a concrete investment decision, illustrating in-group dynamics, clarifying foundational concepts (presumption, burden of proof, prima facie), and presenting structured methods for case development, the paper demonstrates how managerial decision making can be made more explicit, auditable, and persuasive. The use of theory and citations reinforces the claim that thoughtful framing, rigorous evaluation, and attention to biases lead to better decisions in uncertain environments (Kahneman, 2011; Bazerman & Moore, 2013; Simon, 1957).

References

  • Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2013). Judgment in managerial decision making (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1999). Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
  • Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. New York, NY: Free Press.
  • Janis, I. L. (1972). Groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  • Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed.). (2019). Bryan A. Garner (Ed.). St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters.
  • Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and Practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Related Assignments