I think the answer is A. Sorting and charting data from surveys
Answer:
Joel is behaving in a totally unprofessional & unethical manner
Explanation:
As assistant controller, Joel Kimmel's job specification & responsibility includes financial statement preparation & combination, putting of internal controls in place, detailed analysis & reporting of cost variance, acts as the go-between with external auditors amongst other such responsibilities.
As such, when Joel discovered the cost discrepancy during the reconciliation, it was actually his responsibility to call the bank's attention to the variance. This is something that clearly falls under his job specification & can be considered as neglect of duty. Joel's decision defeats the very purpose of bank reconciliation, which is to correct any such discrepancy & to the ensure the rectification of transactions. Most importantly, the decision Joel plans to take is very unethical & is against standard accounting practices
We can therefore, say that Joel's decision is thoroughly unethical & unprofessional
Answer:
Answer
Explanation:
I would most likely accept the promotion.
Several factors would influence my decision.
- The new scope of responsibilities
This will include all the additional risks and tasks that I will get by accepting the promotion. Taking new responsibilities might sound scary, and many people will be discouraged by this. But at some point, all great leaders are someone without any experience too. As long as we are open to criticism, we will adapt to our new responsibilities.
- the new pay raise
Economic gain usually comes with promotion. It will motivate me to do more for the company.
- The likelihood of me getting another promotion chance
Chances like this do not come often in our life. The fact that I'm offered a promotion means that the higher up has reviewed my previous work result and determine that I'm the best option for them. I would not let this chance go to waste.
Answer:
Mitigate his damages
Explanation:
By law, mitigation involves making effort to reduce losses. Now, an individual claiming damages or losses due to break in contract or a wrongful act by another individual has a duty under the law to mitigate those damages. That is to say, the plantiff is under a duty under the law to reduce the loss by taking advantage of any opportunity arising that may help.redice the losses or damages. However, in this case, the plantiff, who's the landlord Henry did not mitigate the loss by not attempting to or renting the accommodation out for the remaining six month. Thus, the damages would likely be reduced because he failed to mitigate his damages as he should have done as required under the law.
Original Source Material
Student Version
Merck, in fact, epitomizes the ideological nature--the pragmatic idealism--of highly visionary companies. Our research showed that a fundamental element in the "ticking clock" of a visionary company is a core ideology--core values and a sense of purpose beyond just making money--that guides and inspires people throughout the organization and remains relatively fixed for long periods of time.
References:
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (2002). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York, NY: Harper Paperbacks.
Several factors can contribute to long-term organizational success. One is the establishment of a core ideology that Collins and Porras (2002) describe as "core values and sense of purpose beyond just making money" (p. 48). Also, the importance of a visionary leader that guides and inspires people throughout the organization and remains relatively fixed for long periods of time is hard to over emphasize.
References:
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (2002). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York, NY: Harper Paperbacks.
Which of the following is true for the Student Version above?
Word-for-Word plagiarism
Paraphrasing plagiarism
This is not plagiarism
This is not plagiarism.
Answer: Option 3.
<u>Explanation:</u>
Plagiarism in very simple words is the copying of the content of the document that has been written by some one else in to your own document. During this copying the due acknowledgement is also not given to the document from which it has been taken.
The document that has been talked about in the question above is not an example of plagiarism. The proof for this is the due acknowledgement given to the references from whose document the content has been taken into the document.
