Answer:
1.Joe should be less likely to make the trip.
2. The ticket cost for Joe which is the amount of $25 changes whether he goes or not, and will therefore the only cost that should be considered.
Explanation:
1. Joe should therefore be less likely to go for the trip.
Since the ticket has been already, this means the $30 that you spent on it is a sunk cost because It is the money you cannot recover, and in deciding whether you want see the game or not, this means you should compare the benefit of seeing the game which is measured by the biggesr dollar amount you would be willing and ready to pay to see it .
Hence only those additional costs must be incur to see the game which is the opportunity cost of your time which is why in Cost-Benefit, only the costs that will actually change with your decision will be considered, which is not the case with the $30 that you wont see again whether you go to the game or not.
2.Joe must try to weigh the opportunity cost of his time in making his decision on whether he need to attend the game or not and he must as well weigh the $25 he will spend for his ticket.
Hence, when deciding, the additional costs Joe have to incur in other to see the game are $25 higher than that of the remaining costs for you. Hence, Joe should be less likely to make the trip.
Lastly You might as well think that the cost of seeing the game is higher for you, since your ticket cost $30, in which Joe's will cost only $25 which means at the decision making moment, the ticket cost for Joe which is $25 changes whether he goes or not and will therefore be the only cost that should be considered.
