Answer:
The transformational leaders are bureaucratic and charismatic are people oriented in nature.
Explanation:
- The charismatic leaders are also called as the transformational leaders and shares various things.
- Charismatic leaders make their status better and transformational leaders focus on the transformation of the organization's vision. The main difference is the focus and the audience.
- The charismatic leaders are committed and have engaging personalities like martin Luther king as his speeches were often more tangible than other leaders and used to have a huge influence on the people he met.
- The charismatic leaders are more emotionally attached to their audience. They work towards an emphasis on the greater good. More people-oriented.
The earliest elections will come effective on January 1, 2016 for case a, b, d anf January 1, 2017 for rest options.
<h3>For different
alternative scenarios:</h3>
a.) Jane is on top of things and makes the election on January 1, 2016.
January 1, 2016
b.) Jane is mostly on top of things and makes the election on January 15, 2016.
January 1, 2016
c.)Jane makes the election on February 10, 2016. She needed a little time to convince a C corporation shareholder to sell its stock to a qualifying shareholder. That process took all of January, and she was glad to have it over with.
January 1, 2017
d.)Jane makes the election on March 14, 2016.
January 1, 2016
e.)Jane makes the election on February 5, 2016. One of the shareholders refused to consent to the S election. He has since sold his shares (on January 15, 2016) to another shareholder who consented to the election.
January 1, 2017
To view similar question about election scenarios, refer to:
brainly.com/question/17101454
#SPJ4
The syllogism used is conditional, that is, it occurs through deductive reasoning, because if the minor premise is true, the minor premise will also be true.
<h3 /><h3>What is Conditional syllogism?</h3>
It is a type of syllogism widely used in everyday life, but the conclusion is not always true, because despite having two true premises, the conclusion can be false, because the argumentation is not always valid, as it does not directly represent the premises.
Therefore, despite being syllogisms that follow the pattern of "If" and "then" to express a logic, the conclusion will not always be true, as this type of syllogism can also be hypothetical.
Find out more about syllogism here:
brainly.com/question/361872
<span>For the amount invested in the 20 year annuity immediate,
the return will be;
r/(1 - (1+r)^-n) = 0.05/(1- 1.05^-20)
= 0.0802425872
= 8.02425872%
Now, return on perpetuity-immediate = 5%
So, 5% + </span>8.02425872% = 13.02425872<span>
for equal returns from both investments,
X = 5/(13.02425872) x 640,000
= $245,695.365
= $ 245,695.36 </span>
Answer:
times interest ratio = EBIT / interest expense
1)
Kringle: TIE ratio = ($40,870 - $10,300 - $350) / $350 = 86.34
Leihman: TIE ratio = ($46,320 - $12,080 - $2,000) / $2,000 = 16.12
2)
Kringle was better able to cover its interest expenses since its TIE ratio is much higher than Leihman's (more than 5 times higher). This means that it is much easier for Kringle to pay off the interests on its debt.
