Answer:
It does not
Explanation:
In this question, we are asked to evaluate if a particular transaction carried out between a customer and an inn falls within the dictates of the local consumer protection law in the state.
Firstly, we look at what the local consumer protection law of the state talks about. It explicitly stated that customers should get receipts when suppliers receive deposits from them. Thus, this make the receipt act as the first thing to have if there would be any claim under the consumer protection law for the transaction carried out in the state.
Now, looking at the particular scenario we have, the customer paid for the room, but he was not issued a receipt. This makes the case not treatable within the consumer protection law of the state as the receipt which should have been a prerequisite for further exploration is not available
Answer:
increase by 400 billion dollars
Explanation:
marginal propensity to consume = mpc
tax multiplier = -mpc/1-mpc
from our question we were given mpc to be 0.8
-0.8/1-0.8
= -0.8/0.2
= -4
change in output = -4(-100)
= 400 billion dollars
for a $100 tax decrease, output will increase by $100 billion x 4
= $400 billion
This question is incomplete.
The complete question, answer & explanation for this question is given in the attachment below.
Answer:
a framing bias.
Explanation:
given data
necklace he liked = $139
pearl necklace originally = $173.75
sale for = 20% off
reduced the price = $139
solution
- Rodrigo is subject to readymade bias. This bias refers to how people’s decisions affect situations, words, or settings. Although both stores have the same price, Pearl’s own stores create a relative factor
- It showed a high base price and a 20% discount, which made Rodrigo feel like he was making a deal, so he was more inclined to buy the necklace and not at the Murphy jewelry store.
