Answer:
1,875,000 Economic Value Added
Explanation:
Net Operating Profit After Taxes - Invested Capital x Weighted Average Cost of Capital = Economic Value added
This represent the return on the shareholders after their investment return is paid. It is the value generated from the investent resources.
3,700,000 x ( 1- 0.25 ) = 2,775,000 Operating Income after taxes
18,000,000 x 5% = (900,000) Required Return
1,875,000 Economic Value Added
•.¸¸♪✺ Hello. ✺•.¸¸♪
☆━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━☆
:
♡━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━♡
I think you are holding both of these puppies, is a Toy fox terrier.
Plus, if you want to know how much they will grow up?
<h2>
★ <u>
EXPLANATION:</u></h2><h2 />
The toy fox terrier, will grow up of they height is: like 8.5, or 11.5 inches. And they weight will be 3.7 or to 7 pounds. And they life expectancy is: 13 to 15 years.
Sorry, I couldn't do a long Explanation...
Hope It Helped!
#LearnWithBrainly
:
- TanakaBro
Answer:1. The reason that the varsity team lost to JV team is lack of working together as a team.
2.Coach P. when selecting the rowers for the two teams should have looked at both the psychological(personality types and traits, if they are leader or followers etc.) as well as the physical aspect ( Stamina, Speed ,Coordination, Strength etc.) of each individual.
explanation:
1:Even though the varsity team consisted of the best individuals for speed , strength, coordination and endurance, they lacked the cohesiveness to perform as a unit. Each of the eight individual rowers had to be single-mindedly attuned to one another in order to synchronize their rowing and perform in unison. Unfortunately, the team also too many disruptor and lacked a leader.
2:The Coach should have experimented more by creating different scenarios to see how well the individuals responded and performed to one another in different situations when it came to a team environment. For example, putting the rowers in total control of the team's dynamics is the best hands on lesson they could ever experience. This would have allowed the rowers a deeper understanding what it take to be winner from a loser.
3.Coach P. should switch both the teams for Tuesday since after extensive observations and evaluation he has witnessed JV work as a better team. The JV team possessed better synergy, synchronization, and shared a common goal causing them to win more frequently than the Varsity team, despite the fact that the Varsity team had better individual members. In addition, there has been a precedent for switching boats. During the mid-1990’s, the Cornell Coach faced asimilar situation as Coach P. and as a result of him making the switch, both the JV and Varsity teams ended up winning the Eastern Championships. This demonstrates that it is more likely thatthe teams will win if they agree to switch. Moreover, even if Coach P. decided not to switch the teams, it would have taken quite a while to rebuild Varsity’s team structure, morale, and overall team synergy, implying that they probably would not have been ready in time to compete and win the race as the Varsity team anyway.
Hello There!
Your answer would be <u>C). A tortious act may also be a criminal act.</u>
The reason why C would be your answer is because a tortious act is something that harms someone in any way. The reason why it "may" be a criminal act is because determine if the tortious act is a criminal act really depends on the scenario that is occurring. For example, someone could cause a tortious act in a way of self defense, this scenario would be debatable because the person that committed the tortious act had a valid reason in doing so, and that was protecting themselves. But, if a person was to cause a tortious act by hurting someone to steal from them, then that would definitely be a criminal act because they are performing dangerous things to someone else, and the person could file a lawsuit against it.
Let's dive into why the other answer choices are incorrect. We can use the old fashion process of elimination:
Answer choice "A). A tortious act is always a criminal act" is incorrect because it is not always a criminal act, it depends on the scenario it's in. This is the reason why this answer choice would be eliminated.
Answer choice "B). A criminal act is always a tortious act" is incorrect because there are MANY criminal acts that doesn't harm anyone, for example, tax evasion (not paying taxes) is a criminal act, but does not cause any harm to anyone. This is the reason why this answer choice would be eliminated.
Answer choice "D). A tortious act is the same as a contract dispute" is incorrect because harming someone is not the same as not doing what a contract says. A contact dispute is when someone that's part of a contract did not do a duty that the contract says that they're suppose to do, and that usually doesn't have to be any harm to anyone. That would not be the same as a tortious act, harming someone. This is the reason why this answer choice would be eliminated.
