Answer:
The correct answer is letter "A": Beer prices will go down.
Explanation:
Usually, when two large companies merge they take most or almost all part of their market causing a monopoly. This implies the recently-merged company to set the price of the goods according to what they believe is suitable which does not necessarily match with the consumers' expectations. However, for the companies in the case to prove the government that the merger will benefit the economy, they must show that the price of the beer will go down which is the opposite of what is expected under other regular situations.
Answer:
Explanation:
Yes, Disparate Impact Theory can be used in this case relating to the processes of subjective selection such as interrogations. If a discriminatory workplace practice has an unfair and aggressive impact on minorities, it may be in violation of Title VII. Professional individual employees who support on the basis of discretionary judgments without intending to do so are engaging in biased conduct.
The case of Watson V. Fort Worth Bank & Trust will be used to support my claim. Clara Watson turned down a promotion that was contingent on an interview under this scenario.
The U.s. Supreme Court Declared that a Title VII claim to a strategy of subjection enforcement can only be investigated under the unequal care principle. In the majority decision, the Court allowed the principle of (disparate effects) to apply to arbitrarily defined work practices.
Answer:
The annual rate of return is -2.83%
Explanation:
The annual rate can be calculated from the formula FV=PV*(1+r)^N
Where FV is the future value of the investment
PV is the amount invested which is $276,500
N is 9 years
213600=276,500*(1+r)^9
213600/276500=(1+r)^9
divide index on both sides by 9
(213600/276500)^1/9=1+r
(213600/276500)^1/9-1=r
r=-0.02827109
r=-2.83%
Hence the annual rate of return on the investment is -2.83%, which means the investment depleted by 2.83% from initial invested amount of $276,5000 to $213,600 after nine years
