Under Price discrimination, an organization compares a few dimensions of its performance to that of another company, be it a competitor or in a totally distinctive industry.
Charge discrimination is a promoting method that fees clients one-of-a-kind charges for the same products or services based on what the seller thinks they can get the patron to comply with. In natural price discrimination, the vendor fees every customer the most fee they'll pay.
Charge discrimination refers to charging distinct clients special costs for the same true carrier. The Sherman Antitrust Act, Clayton Antitrust Act, and Robinson-Patman Act outlaw price discrimination while the intent of that discrimination is to harm competitors.
Price discrimination in a monopoly is a practice of charging extraordinary costs for an equal product. Monopolies generally have extra control over providers than ordinary sellers, which means that they can notably impact the providers' promoting prices.
Learn more about Price discrimination here: brainly.com/question/23342760
#SPJ4
An example of a study that has a false correlation caused by a lurking variable is " research scientist examines the influence of diet and exercise on a an individual's blood pressure."
<h3>What is a lurking variable in a study?</h3>
Lurking variable is known to be a kind of a variable that is said not be the explanatory variable nor can it be called the response variable but it is one that is seen to have a relationship (e.g. correlation) with the response and that of the explanatory variable.
Note that A lurking variable is one that can be falsely identify as a strong relationship that exist between variables or it is one that often hide the true relationship.
Hence, An example of a study that has a false correlation caused by a lurking variable is " research scientist examines the influence of diet and exercise on a an individual's blood pressure."
Learn more about lurking variable from
brainly.com/question/13285819
#SPJ1
Answer:
assets reduced by $59,000
Explanation:
To solve the problem we use the accounting formula.
Asset= Total liabilities + owner's equity
Since we are dealing with change in asset, liability, and equity
Change in asset = change in liability + change in owner's equity
Change in asset= -69,000 + 10,000
Change in asset= - 59,000
This implies that the company's assets reduced by $59,000
Answer:
B. False
Explanation:
It is false at least because 3 reasons: Sweetland is not intervening in the economy by executing economic activities, all are based on private effort. Sweetland is not changing the regulatory framework to change the rules of the economy, so market forces command prices and levels of supply and demand. Sweetland is using a well recognized public function (taxes) to improve a social outcome (income inequality), that is not related to economy
