Answer: te correct answer is B) Cultural pollution
Explanation:
Cultural pollution is a defilement of culture and it is when too much mass of art, language, clothing, media and products whose existence is really meaningless is represented in society. Cultural pollution can be enjoyed in earnest by uncritical people, and ironically by the jaded and educated.
Mountains were steep and little level for framing. The land around T town were something
Answer:
20 more tons of pollution into the air, and Firm B will emit 100 fewer tons of pollution into the air.
Explanation:
It is given that :
Amount of tons of pollutants emitted by the two firms A and B earlier = 100 tons
Cost of pollutants by firm A = $ 200 per ton of pollutions
Cost of pollutants by firm B = $ 100 per ton of pollutions
Since the cost for eliminating the pollutants into the air is more for the firm A, the ticket is also more valuable for firm A. And therefore, firm A will buy all the tickets form firm B for an amount around $ 101 to $ 199. It will do so as to have a positive consumer and also to produce surplus.
So firm A will eliminate 20 tons of pollution and will use 80 ton capacity from the tickets. And for firm B, it will eliminate all 100 tons of pollutions.
While making adjustment of the journal entries for the accrued salaries of $600 and current salaries of $1500, the salaries expense amount should be debited for an amount of $900.
<h3>What are journal entry adjustments?</h3>
Journal entries adjustments are the amount that are adjusted at the end of the accounting period to avoid errors while preparing journal entries for the financial transactions.
The adjusted journal entries for the above transactions are attached with an image for reference.
Hence, option B; the salaries expense account will be debited for $900 in the journal entries adjustments.
Learn more about journal entries adjustments here:
brainly.com/question/13375097
#SPJ1
This is more of an ethics question and up to each individuals beliefs, but I'll try my best to answer it for you. "I would not kill the one innocent person to save five other people because no one's life is greater than another's. The five people would die if I hadn't intervened at all and that one death would be on me. The same would apply to the second scenario, I would not kill the five people to save one."