If you need to indicate the missing ammount of each letter in the grahp then it will be like follows:
For the first case:
A = $9,600 + $5,000 + $8,000 = $22,600$22,600 + $1,000 – B = $17,000
B = $22,600 + $1,000 – $17,000 = $6,600$17,000 + C = $20,000
C = $20,000 – $17,000 = $3,000
D = $20,000 – $3,400 = $16,600
<span>E = ($24,500 – $2,500) – $16,600 = $5,400
</span><span>F = $5,400 – $2,500 = $2,900
</span>And now for the second case:
G + $8,000 + $4,000 = $16,000
G = $16,000 – $8,000 – $4,000 = $4,000$16,000 + H – $3,000 = $22,000
H = $22,000 + $3,000 – $16,000 = $9,000(I – $1,400) – K = $7,000(I – $1,400) – $22,800 = $7,000
<span>I = $1,400 + $22,800 + $7,000 = $31,200
</span>J = $22,000 + $3,300 = $25,300
K = $25,300 – $2,500 = $22,800$7,000 – L = $5,000
<span>L = $2,000</span>
Answer:
The conception of man as an economic animal is implied by the view that economic production is the determining “factor” or “sphere” of man or society. Against this conception can be put another, that of man as praxis. This takes account of man as a creative being, capable of realizing his freedom through his own activity. In this article the theory of the determining role of the “economic factor”, and the theory of factors in general have been examined. The economic interpretation of history, a variant of the theory of factors, has been acknowledged as partly true for the self‐alienated man and society, but the theory of factors in any variant has been found inadequate as a general theory of man, or society. The possibility of freedom cannot be reduced to the fact that the determining roles played by “factors”, vary, or to the hope that the economic “factor” can be subordinated to a “better” one. Man's freedom consists in his resolving the conflict of “factors”, and in realizing himself as an integral creative being, no longer split into independent and mutually opposed spheres.
Explanation:
that should help
Answer:
Nathalie provides a cosigner on her loan
Explanation:
In the case when an inidvidual co-signs the loan so the individual is become obligated in a legal way to repay the full loan with respect to nathalie when she is not able to pay the amount. Also the loan officer would permitted in that case when the co-signer has the stable kind of job or the source of revenue.
So, nathalie not sign the car of the parent as the collateral as it required the parent consent
So the above should be the answer
