Based on the percentage of readers who own a particular make of the car and the random sample, we can infer that there is sufficient evidence at a 0.02 level to support the executive claim.
<h3>What is the evidence to support the executive's claim?</h3>
The hypothesis is:
Null hypothesis : P = 0.55
Alternate hypothesis : P ≠ 0.55
We then need to find the test statistic:
= (Probability found by marketing executive - Probability from publisher) / √( (Probability from publisher x (1 - Probability from publisher))/ number of people sampled
= (0.46 - 0.55) / √(( 0.55 x ( 1 - 0.55)) / 200
= -2.56
Using this z value as the test statistic, perform a two-tailed test to show:
= P( Z < -2.56) + P(Z > 2.56)
= 0.0052 + 0.0052
= 0.0104
The p-value is 0.0104 which is less than the significance level of 0.02. This means that we reject the null hypothesis.
The Marketing executive was correct.
Find out more on the null and alternate hypothesis at brainly.com/question/25263462
#SPJ1
Answer:
The correct answer is 1,900,000 dollars.
Explanation:
This question requires us to calculate the amount that the Sun angel will recognize as warrantly liability in it balance sheet for the year ended at 20x1.
The sales made during the year is 180 millions dollars. So the company will recognize the provision as follow (during the year)
(180M * 4%= 7.2M)
Debit Warrantly Expense $7.2M
Credit Liability $7.2M
Claim entertain during the year that has reduce the above recognize liabilty is
Debit Liabilty $5.3M
Credit Cash $5.3M
Liability to be reported = $7.2M - $5.3M = 1,900,000 dollars
Answer:
C. To enforce property rights
Explanation:
Government intervention in market can be non materistically via regulation , materistically via taxes & subsidy.
Although the second materislistic way of tax, subsidy comes under the perview of 'Government Budget' .
Government budget is anual financial statement showing economy's expected revenue & expenditure .
Economic growth & stability by reallocation of resources , reducing income inequalities - reflect 'efficiency' & 'equity' as valid reasons .
Foreign protection is also not invalid depending upon the initial budding stage of a developing economy & its global stand. Eg - India 1950 to 1990 .
However all these are progressive legitimate reason for govt. Intervention .
But , enforcing property rights is a feature of 'socialistic (communistic) economy - which has its own demerits like loss of consumers soveireignity , lack of postive competitive efficiency , govt overburden.
Answer:
a. Variable costing income from operations <u>is greater than </u>absorption costing income from operations.
b. $870,000
Explanation:
a. Under Variable costing, only the variable manufacturing costs are apportioned to the units produced.
Cost under Variable costing are;
= 114 * 14,500
= $1,653,000
Under Absorption Costing, both fixed and variable costs are apportioned to the units produced.
Cost therefore is;
= (114 + 60) * 14,500
= $2,523,000
Variable costing income from operations is greater than absorption costing income from operations because Absorption costs yields more cost.
b.= Absorption cost - Variable cost
= 2,523,000 - 1,653,000
= $870,000
<em>Variable costing income from operation will be $870,000 higher than Absorption costing income from operations.</em>
Answer:
$150,150
Explanation:
Total fair value of all assets:
= Land + Building + Paddleboats
= $67,200 + $158,400 + $254,400
= $480,000
Building accounted for:
= Fair value of building ÷ Total fair value
= $158,400 ÷ $480,000
= 33%
Therefore, the building is 33% of the total fair value of assets.
Cost of acquisition of assets:
= Amount paid + Closing cost to buy out a competitor
= 450,000 + 5,000
= $455,000
Cost to be allocated to the building:
= Cost of acquisition of assets × Percent share in total fair value
= $455,000 × 33%
= $150,150
