Answer:
1.33
Explanation:
Cross price elasticity of demand measures the responsiveness of quantity demanded of good A to changes in price of good B.
Cross price elasticity = percentage change in quantity demanded of good F / percentage change in price of good E
12% / 9% = 1.33
I hope my answer helps you
It is true that a standing bill been passed
Answer:
Choose CareCo.
Explanation:
Given : CareCo offers a generous health insurance package to all employees. ApathyInc pays slightly higher wages than CareCo, but does not offer health insurance.
A person who is unhealthy & expects to have high healthcare expenses : would have issues having direct health insurance from an insurer, based on high risk evaluation. Even if by chance, he/ she gets, it will be at extremely high price i.e premium rates & is likely to have less coverage. So, the person rationally would prefer to protect himself / herself from this huge health expenditure risk, & would protect self & family from catastrophic health costs. He / she would do so by choosing to work for Care Co, which gives generous health insurance to all its employees, by sacrifising higher salary by Apathy giving no health insurance. He/ she is logical as the wage differential is likely to be less than catastrophic health costs
Answer:
Yeah, her argument will be good in Aceves. The further explanation is given below.
Explanation:
The promissory clause applies to just the requirement that although no attorney seems to be legal, a commitment is actionable. This happens whenever the Promiser already made that commitment to something like the Promisee who performs mostly on commitment.
- Aceves having operated throughout the specific situation mostly on the foundation of the Bank's commitment or withdrew its complaint. Therefore in this circumstance, the essential requirement that perhaps the promisee would have focused mostly on promiser is accomplished.
- Consecration of promise to pay estoppels is founded on either the ideals of equity as well as justice. The lender's action was unreasonable to Aceves and because of that, the premise would be effective on either the bank as to when the applicant was working on a pledge basis. Thus Aceves will be accurate in her argument.
