ANSWER : i’m not so sure about this question nor the answers but i’ll go for c
Answer:
All of the above are true
Explanation:
- the Strategic Profit Model (SPM) can assist the logistics manager in the evaluation of cash flows and asset utilization decisions.
Strategic profit Model will contain several prediction on the firm's future profitability. This information will help managers to decide whether they should change the way they allocate their resources or to maintain the current usage in order to achieve their goals.
- the SPM fails to consider the timing of cash flows
The information that is made in Strategic Profit Model is based on the cash flows that received within one financial period. This create a little bit of weakness in this model since the timing of cash flows really determine whether the managers could or couldn't execute the decision. Having a plan to act while not having the resources to do it at the correct time will be useless.
- the SPM is subject to manipulation in the short run
Since the SPM is projected for the long run, managers could manipulate the data in order to please the shareholders.
- the SPM fails to recognize assets that are dedicated to specific relationships
SPM make its prediction based on generalization of all assets, liabilities, and equities that the company has. So, if there are assets owned to specific relationships, the SPM will still automatically consider it as part of assets that is used to generat profit. This will make the prediction become a little bit inaccurate.
The correct answer is <span>regard strength and toughness.
A culture of honor refers to one in which individuals (particularly men) place high importance on protecting their reputation by retaliating with physical violence, insults and aggression. Since,individuals belonging to such cultures value toughness and aggression, they are naturally more reluctant to seek </span><span>mental health care.</span>
There is a widespread opinion on both sides of the Atlantic that as the Magna Carta is to the British attachment to rights, the American version of this attachment is to be found in the U.S. Bill of Rights. Sometimes we hear more: that not only the origin, but also the substance of the U.S. version, is to be found in the Magna Carta.
To be sure, we have to start the rights narrative somewhere and since participants in the rights debate over 400 years don’t seem inclined to go further back than the Magna Carta, it seems reasonable to start there. And despite the feudal language and medieval concerns that run through, and thus date, the document, there is something enduring there that appeals to subsequent generations.
We suggest that the enduring quality is an appeal through the centuries that those who govern us do so in a reasonable manner. And all the better to secure the proposition that rulers exercise their power in a reasonable manner, we write down what we think is unreasonable conduct. Thus a list of what those in authority can’t do emerges.
In particular, we might say that the Magna Carta calls for the rule of law in opposition to the rule of unreasonable men. Furthermore, the rule of law is to be secured by an attachment to the due process of law.
The question then is how much of the Magna Carta made its way into the U. S. Bill of Rights? The answer is 9 of the 26 provisions in the Bill of Rights can be traced back to the Magna Carta. That’s about a third or 33%. And these provisions are heavily concerned with the right to petition and the due process of law.
The Magna Carta does not call for an abolition of the monarchy or a change in the feudal order. Nor does it call for religious freedom or freedom of the press. The U.S. Bill of Rights, however, presupposes the abolition of monarchy and feudalism; the American appeal to natural rights raises the question of religious freedom and freedom of the press.
