Answer:
Archaeologists are people who study the ancient remains of ancient humans, like pottery, skulls, etc.
Hope this helps!
Answer:
29/30
Explanation:
First simply 6/20:
=3/10
Now we get the lcm, the lcm of 15 and 10 is 30 so now we will multiply the doniminator with a number to get 30 and also multiply the numinator with the same number as you multiplied the dominator with.
= 38/30 - 9/30
Answer:
C) All factors other than the price of bananas (for example, consumer tastes and incomes) are assumed to be constant
Explanation:
When developing an economic model, only a limited number of variables can be taken into account for the sake of simplicity and understanding. Economic models never give a full picture of reality, only an approach.
The economic model alluded in the question is perhaps the most famous of all: the supply and demand model. It tells us that, assuming all else constant, the higher price, the less quantity is demanded, and the lower the price, the more quantity is demanded.
Answer: Ultramares corporation v. Touche established Ultramares doctrine. Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that scienter is required before CPAs can be held liable.
Explanation:
All the options except the above are true. Ultramares corporation v. Touche did establish the Ultramares doctrine.
United States v. Natelli sentenced two CPAs to prison for a year, in addition to fines, for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bily v. Arthur Young did not uphold the restatement doctrine. The restatement doctrine restatement doctrine makes an auditor liable to people who rely on the quality of his work be they his clients or third parties. Two high courts ruled that auditors are not liable to third parties who use their work but only to the party that contracted their work.
However, Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that an allegation of scienter (an intention to deceive) is not required before CPAs can be held liable as long as the actions constitute actual deception.
While rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act states the presence of scienter as a requirement to commit an offense, the court ruled against the statute by eliminating the Scienter clause from criminal statute and ruled against Ernst & Ernst.
