On one society A the price of an apple is $3 and the price of an orange is $7,

while on socity B the apple and orange are the same price, $4.
society A people consume 10 apples and 8 oranges while societyB people consume
8 apples and 12 oranges. Which society is better off? Explain your
answer and any assumptions you make.

can anyone help me what assumption should i make ? weak axiom reveal preference and all society has same indifferent curve?

I would make the economic assumption that money saved is money earned.

SocietA spends 10*3 + 7*8
SocietB spends 8*4 + 12*4

the question already tell u
SocietA spends 10*3 + 7*8
SocietB spends 8*4 + 12*4

thanks for help anyway

Ok, sorry for the response. It seemed to me to be the point...the society that spent the most on food would be worse off. Maybe I am wrong on that.

also i think money saved is money earned is bit irrelevant to this question

Should i say the all society has same indifferent curve?(what i think) because from the indifference curve of society B the consumption of 8 apples and 12 oranges showed revealed preference to consumption point of 10 apples and 8 oranges,because society B has chosen to consume of 8 apples and 12 oranges when 10 apples and 8 oranges is affordable.But for society A consumption point 8 apples and 12 oranges is lies outside of their budget line.hence we have no idea about whether 10 apples and 8 oranges better or not.I have no idea make any judgement about which society is better..because from common sense both society should have different taste hence different indifference curve.again should i make assumption all society has same indifferent curve???

I thought that under problem, you were told that both societies have the same preferences. I would interpret that to mean both societies have the same SET of indifference curves.

I would argue that B society is better off -- You can show this by a graph, put apples on one axis, oranges on the other. Draw the budget constraint for Society A and indicate the point of 10 apples and 8 oranges as the revealed preference. Repeat for Society B (on the same graph). Society A's consumption point lies within B's budget constraint. That is, Society B could have chosen 10 apples, 8 oranges. But it didnt, it chose something else. Conversely, society A could not have made B's choice of 8 apples 12 oranges as such a point was outside of A's budget constraint. Now then, my conclusion rests on the given assumption that both societies have the same apples/oranges preferences.

Yes, assuming that both societies have the same preferences for apples and oranges is an important assumption to make in order to make a valid comparison between the two societies. If the preferences for the two goods were different between the societies, it would be difficult to determine which society is better off based solely on consumption quantities.

By assuming that both societies have the same indifference curves, you can compare their consumption points and make a judgment on which society is better off. In this case, if society B is choosing to consume 8 apples and 12 oranges, even though they have the option to choose 10 apples and 8 oranges, it suggests that society B prefers the combination of 8 apples and 12 oranges over the other option.

On the other hand, society A does not have the option to choose 8 apples and 12 oranges as it lies outside of their budget constraint. Therefore, we cannot determine if society A would have preferred the combination of 8 apples and 12 oranges over the other option.

Based on this analysis, society B is better off because they are able to choose a combination of apples and oranges that they prefer, while society A does not have that option. However, it is important to note that this conclusion relies on the assumption of the same indifference curves for both societies.