Suppose that two people, Michelle and James each live alone in an isolated region. They each have the same resources available, and they grow potatoes and raise chickens. If Michelle devotes all her resources to growing potatoes, she can raise 200 pounds of potatoes per year. If she devotes all her resources to raising chickens, she can raise 50 chickens per year. (If she apportions some resources to each, then she can produce any linear combination of chickens and potatoes that lies between those extreme points. If James devotes all his resources to growing potatoes, he can raise 80 pounds of potatoes per year. If he devotes all his resources to raising chickens, he can raise 40 chickens per year

To analyze the opportunity costs and comparative advantage between Michelle and James, let's first consider the amount of potatoes and chickens they can produce individually.

Michelle's Production Possibility Frontier (PPF):
- If Michelle devotes all her resources to growing potatoes, she can produce 200 pounds of potatoes per year.
- If Michelle devotes all her resources to raising chickens, she can produce 50 chickens per year.

James's Production Possibility Frontier (PPF):
- If James devotes all his resources to growing potatoes, he can produce 80 pounds of potatoes per year.
- If James devotes all his resources to raising chickens, he can produce 40 chickens per year.

To determine their opportunity costs and comparative advantage, we need to calculate the marginal rate of transformation (MRT) for each of them, which represents the rate at which they can switch between producing potatoes and chickens.

For Michelle:
- MRT of potatoes = change in potatoes / change in chickens = (200 - 0) / (0 - 50) = -4
This means that for every 1 chicken she wants to produce, she has to give up 4 pounds of potatoes.

For James:
- MRT of potatoes = change in potatoes / change in chickens = (80 - 0) / (0 - 40) = -2
This means that for every 1 chicken he wants to produce, he has to give up 2 pounds of potatoes.

Comparing their MRTs, we can see that Michelle has a lower opportunity cost of producing chickens compared to potatoes (-4 vs. -2). This implies that Michelle has a comparative advantage in chicken production, meaning she can produce chickens at a lower opportunity cost than James. On the other hand, James has a lower opportunity cost of producing potatoes compared to chickens (-2 vs. -4), so he has a comparative advantage in potato production.

Given their comparative advantages, Michelle should focus on chicken production, and James should focus on potato production. By specializing in their respective areas of comparative advantage, they can achieve higher overall production and potentially benefit from trading with each other.

Please note that this analysis assumes a simplified scenario with no external factors affecting production and resource allocation. The actual decision-making process may involve other considerations, such as market demand, costs, and personal preferences.