The correct answer would be Incentive.
Incentive is a thing that motivates or encourages one to do something.
Answer:
Shoe-leather Costs.
Explanation:
In this scenario, Bob manages a grocery store in a country experiencing a high rate of inflation. He is paid in cash twice per month. On payday, he immediately goes out and buys all the goods he will need over the next two weeks in order to prevent the money in his wallet from losing value.
What he can't spend, he converts into a more stable foreign currency for a steep fee. This is an example of the Shoes-leather costs of inflation.
A Shoe-leather costs refers to the costs of time, energy and effort people expend to mitigate the effect of high inflation on the depreciative purchasing power of money by frequently visiting depository financial institutions in order to minimize inflation tax they pay on holding cash.
Metaphorically, it ultimately implies that in order to protect the value of money or assets, some people wear out the sole of their shoes by going to financial institutions more frequently to make deposits.
Hence, Bob is practicing a shoe-leather cost of inflation so as to reduce the nominal interest rates.
168,000 is amount of the gain is Ethan allowed to exclude from his gross income
Solution:
Ethan's post 2009 non-qualified use is 2 years.
He owned the property for 10 years so he is not allowed to exclude 20% of the gain
= $210,000 × 20% = $42,000
He is allowed to exclude = ($210,000 - $42,000)
= $168,000
Answer:
It may be more expensive and time-consuming than using an intermediary
Explanation:
Direct selling makes it hard to reach new customers and also entails spending an extensive time in trying to convince prospective customers before sales is made. Sadly, in some situations, some prospects do not buy in on the intended product and thus, no sale is made and time wasted.
Answer:
The answer is B. Ethan has more experience than Karen.
Explanation:
Now, lets take each Answer option separately and see why only B is correct.
Option A is no longer legally accepted or ethical. Perhaps during the era of segregation back in 1960s' this option could have been acceptable. But today it is illegal and is considered as a violation of basic human rights.
Option C is not correct as well because although people with special needs and physical requirements are entitled to receive certain special treatments, paying them more solely based on their disability is not considered suitable nor ethical.
Option D is unacceptable. No one can assume that men have more stamina than women. There are competent, strong and qualified women who can do their jobs much better than men. So we cannot accept this as an answer.
Option E is incorrect as well. Although a person could be an immigrant, once that person has lawfully taken the citizenship of a country, that "immigrant" is considered as a "citizen" of that country (this is not applicable for illegal immigrants!).
However, we can take option B as the answer. This is because when comparing a new employee with a more experienced employee, we can't see any problem in paying the experienced employee more.
