I would say to try and keep all A's until you are finished with school\
Answer: 13.2%
Explanation:
Given data:
No of stores in the market = 5000
No. of store owners = 2000.
Allison charges = $8/month
Sam charges = $8/month.
Solution:
The market penetration rate would be calculated based on potential customers.
Using our general formula,
Market penetration=Numbers of customers who purchased Allison derived sales and Sam derived sales /Total potential population
Where,
Total potential population=1,500
•Allison derived sales = 129 customers
•Sam derived sales = 69 customers
•Numbers of customers who purchased Allison derived sales and Sam derived sales=129 customers+ 69 customers
•Numbers of customers who purchased Allison derived sales and Sam derived sales =198 customers
Let’s input this into our general formula.
Market penetration
= 169 customers/1,500
= 0.132*100
= 13.2%
The market penetration rate based on potential customers is 13.2%
The most important factor is considering the tuition. A lot of students experience problems regarding expensive student loans and gradually being in debt after school. To prevent this, keep you pool within your financial capability. Then, the basic information comes next, like the courses offered and the quality of education and training.
Answer:
The correct answer is A. In Ricci v. DeStefano, the Supreme Court ruled that an employer may not simply disregard a test based on unwanted results unless the test is shown to be biased or deficient.
Explanation:
Ricci v. DeStefano is a Supreme Court ruling of 2009, after a lawsuit by nineteen firefighters who claimed to have been discriminated against in terms of career development. They denounced that they had been discriminated after having passed the admission tests and still had not been promoted, since no African-American candidate had passed the tests. They also denounced that they had not been promoted because the Fire Department did not want to promote a group of new recruits without including within it any member of racial minorities.
Finally, the Supreme Court established that said procedure violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since in the case equal access to employment was not guaranteed (in this case, favoring minorities over white firefighters), for set different demands for purely racial reasons.
